'Reasonable Doubt' In Criminal Case Not Merely Possible Doubt But Fair Doubt Based On Common Sense & Reason : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (recently on January 09) reiterated that 'reasonable doubt' necessitates that doubt must be free from speculation. It explained that such doubt does not require 'minute emotional detailing'. However, it must be actual, substantial, based upon a reason and not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt.

“It will be relevant to discuss, at this juncture, what is meant by “reasonable doubt”. It means that such doubt must be free from suppositional speculation. It must not be the result of minute emotional detailing, and the doubt must be actual and substantial and not merely vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense…,” stated Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

Reliance was placed upon several judgments including Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395 and State of Haryana v. Bhagirath (1999) 5 SCC 96. The Court also observed that law does not contemplate stitching the pieces of evidence in a watertight manner. In criminal cases, the standard of proof is not proof beyond all doubts but only beyond reasonable doubt.

The Bench also comprising of Justices B.R Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan made these observations while determining the present appellants' conviction under Section 302 (murder) of Indian Penal Code. To summarise, it was alleged by the prosecution that the complainant saw accused persons assaulting the victim. This led to the victim's death. Before the Trial Court, the accused persons claimed innocence by pleading false implication. However, the Trial as well as the High Court ruled against the appellants. Thus, the present appeal.

At the outset, the Court perused the evidence and testimonies provided by the prosecution witnesses. Initially, the Court examined statements of the complainant and observed that though he did not deny the filing of the FIR, he denied any mentioning of accused persons in the same.

Notwithstanding, the Court ruled out any possibility of false implication. The Court refused to believe that the complainant, though informed the police about the incident, did not mention the names of the accused.

“Thus, in our view, during the cross-examination, even if the PW-6 had denied mentioning the names of the appellants to the police, it will be difficult to believe that he did not mention their names to the police when he himself stated that he informed the police what he saw and the police recorded the same in the FIR. We find it hard to believe that the police somehow wrote the names of the appellants in the FIR on their own within such a short period of the occurrence by falsely implicating the appellants.”

Analysing the evidence of the victim's mother, also the eyewitness, the Court said that her presence near the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. The Court also referred to a plethora of judgments relating to discrepancies in the account of eyewitnesses.

Regarding the appellant's defence that statement provided by the eyewitness was recorded belatedly after five days, the Court said that neither the investigating officer nor the witness was asked about it earlier. Thus, such a plea could not be taken now to discredit her evidence.

“Merely because her statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded belatedly i.e. after five days which have been duly considered by the High Court and there are some inconsistencies and embellishments in her testimony before the trial court, we are not persuaded to take the view that PW-10 cannot be an eye-witness and her testimony not credible.,” the Court said.

It also ruled out that there was any deliberate act on the part of the officer to implicate accused persons. After going through the testimonies of other witnesses, the Court concluded that the evidence of eyewitness stands corroborated and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

“No material contradiction between the statement made by her before the court and the previous statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC could be shown by the defence under Section 162 (1) and Explanation thereto as to render her testimony doubtful. A careful perusal of the testimony of PW-10 shows that her narration of the incident was natural, and trustworthy.”

The Court also categorically rejected the appellants' contention of the victim's mother being an interested witness. To bolster, it referred to its decision in Mohd. Rojali Ali Vs. The State of Assam, (2019) 19 SCC 567. Therein, the Court had clearly stated that a related witness cannot be said to be an “interested” witness merely by virtue of being a victim's relative.

“As also observed by the High Court, we do not see any reason why the mother of the victim should falsely implicate the appellants without any rhyme or reason more so when apparently there was no previous animosity of the mother Lata Bai with any of the appellants.,'' the Court concluded.

Based on these observations, the Court was satisfied that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were responsible for the death of the deceased. However, the Court noted that it was still not established clearly whether the act was premeditated or if there was any prior enmity. Thus, the motive for committing the crime has not been clearly established and proved., the court said.

It thus converted the conviction from Section 302 to Part I of Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of IPC. It thus reduced the sentence to the period already undergone while also imposing a fine of Rs.50,000/-.

Case Name: GOVERDHAN & ANR. V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 116 OF 2011

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 51

Click here to read the judgment