Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

Burden to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt Lies on Prosecution: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Infant Death Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment, underscored the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized this while granting bail to Ravi Rai, accused under Section 302 of the IPC for the alleged murder of his four-month-old child. The application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and its interplay with the prosecution’s burden of proof formed a critical aspect of this decision.

 

Facts and Issues: Ravi Rai was charged under Section 302 IPC for allegedly causing the death of his infant child during a domestic quarrel. The key witnesses, including Rai’s wife (the complainant) and their landlord, turned hostile, not supporting the prosecution’s case. This raised issues regarding the adequacy of evidence against Rai and the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, concerning the burden of proving facts within special knowledge.

 

Burden of Proof: The court, referencing judgments like “Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab” and “Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab”, highlighted that the burden of proof initially rests entirely on the prosecution and shifts to the accused only after establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s inability to prove its case weakened its position.

 

Hostile Witnesses: The turning hostile of crucial witnesses, including the complainant, significantly impacted the prosecution’s case. The court observed that the trial court would assess the evidentiary value of these testimonies.

 

Section 106, Evidence Act: The court clarified that Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof to the accused during the initial stages of a trial. It applies when the prosecution has established a prima facie case.

 

Granting of Bail: Considering the hostile witnesses, lack of strong evidence against Rai, and the prolonged period already spent in custody, the court found it reasonable to grant bail, imposing specific conditions to mitigate risks.

 

Decision: The court granted bail to Ravi Rai, subject to conditions including a personal bond, restriction on travel, and directives to not influence witnesses or indulge in criminal activities.

Date of Decision: April 8, 2024

Ravi Rai Vs. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi)

Latest Legal News