Prosecution Is Not Required To Prove Its Case Beyond All Iota Of Doubt: Supreme Court
The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond all iota of doubt, remarked the Supreme Court while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by a murder accused.Karan Singh and others were accused of murder of one Brahmapal Singh. The incident happened in April, 1980. On 1st August 1983, the Trial Court convicted the accused persons for murder and sentenced them...
The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond all iota of doubt, remarked the Supreme Court while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by a murder accused.
Karan Singh and others were accused of murder of one Brahmapal Singh. The incident happened in April, 1980. On 1st August 1983, the Trial Court convicted the accused persons for murder and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. Karan Singh along with other convicted persons filed Criminal Appeal in the year 1983. While the appeal was pending before the High Court, all accused except Karan Singh died. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 30th July 2018. Thus Karan Singh approached the Apex Court.
Though various contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian noted that the presence has been proved by two eyewitnesses. The court further noted that it has been proved by the eye witnesses, that the Appellant carried a rifle. In its judgment, the bench referred to various precedents in which it has been held that a court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness.
"The prosecution was required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which it has done, and not beyond all iota of doubt. The fact that one of the injured witnesses may not have mentioned the name of Appellant Karan Singh does not demolish the evidence of the other witnesses.", the bench said.
The fact that the trial/appeal should have taken years and that other accused should have died during the appeal cannot be a ground for acquittal of the Appellant, the court said while dismissing the appeal.
Headnotes
Criminal Trial - The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond all iota of doubt. (Para 46)
Criminal Trial - The court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. [Referred to Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434 ]
Summary: Appeal against High Court judgment upholding conviction of accused in a murder case - dismissed - The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt - The fact that the trial/appeal should have taken years and that other accused should have died during the appeal cannot be a ground for acquittal.
Case name: Karan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh | SLP (Crl.) No.717 of 2020 | 2 March 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 234
Coram: Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian