Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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)

Similar News