ISSUE:
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal by the Sessions Court and convicting the accused?
Whether exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt leads to injustice to the victim and undermines public faith in criminal justice?
Whether the prosecution evidence sufficiently proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
RULE:
The appellate court has plenary power and a duty to re-assess and scrutinize the entire evidence independently. However, this power must be exercised with caution, keeping in view that the accused’s innocence is strengthened by acquittal, and only “very convincing reasons and comprehensive consideration” can justify reversal.
"Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused." Exaggerated or imaginary doubts cannot justify acquittals. Overly strict adherence to benefit-of-doubt principles, ignoring pragmatic considerations of justice, ultimately erodes the credibility and effectiveness of criminal justice.
The quality of witnesses matters more than quantity; thus, even the testimony of a single eyewitness can sustain a conviction if it is clear, cogent, and credible, though prudence dictates seeking corroboration.
Motive strengthens the likelihood of guilt but its absence only demands deeper scrutiny of evidence, and credible evidence can independently prove guilt notwithstanding absence or uncertainty of motive.