Presumption Of Innocence Under Indian Criminal Jurisprudence
📘 I. What is the Presumption of Innocence?
The presumption of innocence means that every person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty by a competent court of law. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
This principle is a human rights standard recognized in:
Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
In India, it is a judicially evolved doctrine, though not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
⚖️ II. Constitutional & Statutory Basis in India
While the Constitution does not expressly mention the presumption of innocence, the principle is implicit in:
| Provision | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Article 21 | Protection of life and personal liberty — includes fair trial. |
| Article 20(3) | Protection against self-incrimination — supports the presumption of innocence. |
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 101–104) | Places burden of proof on prosecution. |
🔍 III. Burden of Proof & Exceptions
General Rule:
Burden lies on the prosecution.
Accused has no obligation to prove innocence.
Exceptions (Reverse Burden of Proof):
In certain statutes (e.g., NDPS Act, POCSO, Prevention of Corruption Act), the burden may shift to the accused after the prosecution establishes foundational facts.
Even in such cases, the accused must only rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.
🧑⚖️ IV. Key Case Laws on Presumption of Innocence in Indian Criminal Law
1. State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324
Facts:
The accused was convicted solely on the basis of a dying declaration with no corroborating evidence.
Holding:
The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, reinforcing that presumption of innocence is a human right, and conviction must be based on reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Importance:
Reiterated the human rights nature of the presumption of innocence and the high standard of proof required.
2. Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808
Facts:
Accused was convicted by the lower court based on circumstantial evidence.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that if two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be adopted. The Court emphasized the presumption of innocence.
Importance:
A classic authority on benefit of doubt and strict adherence to the presumption of innocence.
3. Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22
Facts:
The issue was whether bail should be granted pending trial.
Holding:
The Court held that presumption of innocence continues even during trial, and bail is a rule, jail is an exception unless proven otherwise.
Importance:
Connected bail jurisprudence with the presumption of innocence, asserting it is a constitutional value.
4. Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294
Facts:
Concerns the applicability of special statutes (like MCOCA) that impose a reverse burden of proof.
Holding:
The Court clarified that reverse burden clauses must be strictly interpreted and applied only after foundational facts are proven by the prosecution.
Importance:
Balances statutory presumptions with the constitutional presumption of innocence.
5. Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417
Facts:
Accused under the NDPS Act, which contains reverse burden provisions.
Holding:
The Court held that even under NDPS, the initial burden lies on the prosecution, and reverse burden provisions must be read narrowly.
Importance:
Reinforced constitutional supremacy over statutory presumptions and protected the right to fair trial.
6. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254
Facts:
Conviction based on weak circumstantial evidence.
Holding:
The Court ruled that when two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must be adopted.
Importance:
Reiterates the doctrine that presumption of innocence persists till final conviction, and benefit of doubt must favor the accused.
📚 V. Principle of “Benefit of Doubt”
This principle flows directly from the presumption of innocence:
If there is reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case, the accused must be acquitted.
The burden of proof is never on the accused to prove their innocence unless the statute expressly requires.
Applied in:
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116
Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637
🧾 VI. Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Kali Ram v. State of HP | If two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail. |
| State of U.P. v. Naresh | Presumption of innocence is a human right. |
| Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. | Bail linked to presumption of innocence. |
| Ranjitsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra | Reverse burden must follow prosecution proving foundational facts. |
| Noor Aga v. State of Punjab | NDPS Act doesn't override presumption of innocence without prosecution proof. |
| Kashi Ram case | Weak circumstantial evidence not enough for conviction. |
✅ VII. Conclusion
The presumption of innocence is a bedrock of Indian criminal jurisprudence, rooted in Article 21’s guarantee of a fair trial.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even in statutes with reverse burden provisions, such as NDPS or POCSO, the courts have insisted on constitutional safeguards.
The judiciary has consistently interpreted procedural and evidentiary rules in favor of protecting the innocent, reaffirming that liberty is paramount in a democratic society.
RELATED Blog
0 comments