SC explains why accused is law’s favorite child

Explaining the axiom that an accused is the “favourite child of law”, the Supreme Court has stated that the concept is based on farsightedness and prudence that calls for protecting an innocent person from getting punished.

“The substratum of this concept is based on farsightedness and prudence. [it says that] ‘let a hundred guilty be acquitted but one innocent should not be convicted’; or that it is better to run the risk of sparing the guilty than to condemn the innocent," said a nine-page written order issued recently.

The order was authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar who was part of a three-member bench that heard an appeal against the acquittal of an accused person in a murder case. A trial court had granted him a death sentence, which a high court had overturned.

The bench, led by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail upheld the high court judgement, noting that there is a need to assess and scrutinize whether the police and prosecution have performed their tasks accurately and diligently in order to apprehend and expose the actual culprits.

“[There is also a need to assess] whether they [prosecution] dragged innocent persons in the crime report [FIR} on account of a defective or botched-up investigation which became a serious cause of concern for the victim who was deprived of justice.”

The order said the philosophy that the accused is the favourite child of law does not imply that the court should grant any unwarranted favour, indulgence or preferential treatment to the accused.

Rather it was coined to maintain a fair-minded and unbiased sense of justice in all circumstances, as a safety gauge or safety contrivance to ensure an even handed right of defence with a fair trial for compliance with the due process of law.

“[This] is an integral limb of the safe administration of criminal justice and is crucial in order to avoid erroneous verdicts, and to advocate for the reinforcement of [another] renowned doctrine ‘innocent until proven guilty’,” it added.

The order said the rationale behind administration of criminal justice is to penalize and reproach the offender so as to maintain law and order in the populace and society and deter such crimes.

"Hence it is the onerous duty of the state to punish offenders under the laws of the land, which includes penal laws. In the administration of criminal justice, the evidence considered may be ocular or circumstantial and may be classified as direct or indirect evidence.

“In all indictments, it is the arduous duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt as where such doubt exists, the court may extend the benefit thereof to the accused and exonerate him from the charge.”

It said the probative worth and value of evidence hinges, by and large, on the facts of each case.

Read SC three-judge panel yet to list crucial cases

The courts, it said, are duty-bound to gauge the trustworthiness of witnesses, identify and resolve any evidentiary inconsistencies and/or contradictions, contemplate the medical evidence vis-à-vis the ocular testimony as corroborative piece of evidence, and then reach a conclusion.

"The term ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is a legal fiction whereby a hefty burden of proof is required to be discharged to award or maintain a sentence or verdict of guilt in a criminal case.

“It connotes that the prosecution is obligated to satisfy the court with regard to the actuality of reasonable grounds, beyond any shadow of doubt, in order to secure a verdict of guilt.

"Indubitably, the standard of proof required in a criminal trial is considerably greater than the benchmark adopted in the trial of civil cases i.e. on a balance of probabilities"

The order noted that the high court appreciated the cumulative effect of the entire evidence in its pith and substance and finally reached the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.

"The high court has ample jurisdiction under the law while dealing with an appeal, irrespective of whether it is moved against an acquittal or against a conviction.

"It is a well settled principle in the criminal justice system that if two sensible and judicious conclusions can be drawn keeping in mind the substance of the evidence, then the view which espouses and provides backing towards acquittal must be subscribed and assented to.

"The doctrine of presumption of innocence is structured on the fundamental principle that every person is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty and, in the event of an acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinvigorated, fortified and strengthened.”

It said law does not impose any fetters on the powers and jurisdiction of the appellate court for reconsideration or reappraisal of the evidence on which the order of conviction or acquittal is grounded.

"The learned high court rightly held that the prosecution badly failed to substantiate the case against [the accused person], and the learned trial court was not justified in convicting him on the strength of untrustworthy or uncorroborated evidence which was full of material contradictions.

"It is a well-settled exposition of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the court would not ordinarily interfere and would instead give due weight and consideration to the findings of the court acquitting the accused which carries a double presumption of innocence.

“[This double presumption includes] the initial presumption that an accused is innocent until found guilty, which is then fortified by a second presumption once the court below [high court] confirms the assumption of innocence, which cannot be displaced lightly.

"In the wake of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned high court and therefore we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal. This criminal petition is dismissed accordingly,” it said.