Reasonable Doubt - Definition - Law Dictionary Home Dictionary Definition reasonable-doubt

Definition :

Reasonable doubt, does not mean some light, airy, insubstantial doubt that may fit through the minds of any of us about almost anything at some time or other; it does not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to convict; it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon reasons, K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 387 (391): (1979) 2 SCR 363: (1979) 1 SCC 355.

The doubt that prevents one from being firmly convinced of a defendant's guilt, or the belief that there is a real possibility that a defendant is not guilty, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn., p. 1272.

If a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the court after taking into consideration the entire material before it regarding the complicity of the accused the benefit of such doubt should be given to the accused but the reasonable doubt should be a real and substantial one and a 'well founded actual doubt arising out of the evidence existing after consideration of all the evidenced. 'Hence a mere whim or a surmise or suspicion furnishes an insufficient foundation upon which to raise a reasonable doubt, and so a vague conjecture, whimsical or vague doubt, a capricious and specu-lative doubt, an arbitrary, imaginary, fanciful, uncertain, chimerical, trivial, indefinite or a mere possible doubt is not a reasonable doubt. Neither is a desire for more evidence of guilt, a capricious doubt or misgiving suggested by an ingenious counsel or arising from a merciful disposition or kindly feeling towards a prisoner, or from sympathy for him or his family', Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. V.P. Sayed Mohammed, A
IR 1983 SC 168: (1983) 1 SCC 370: (1983) 2 SCR 225.

Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. To constitute 'reasonable doubt', it must be free from an over-emotional response. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense, State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, AIR 1988 SC 2154 (2161): (1988) 4 SCC 302: (1988) Supp 2 SCR 391.

To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over-emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case, Krishnan v. State, AIR 2003 SC 2978 (2983): (2003) 7 SCC 56. (Evidence Act, 1872, s. 3)

Means it is not mere possible doubt, because every-thing relating to human affairs and depending upon normal evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt, Wharton's Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th Edn.).

Means the doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an honest, sensible and fair-minded man might, with reason, entertain consistent with a conscien-tious desire to as certain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid con-sideration of all the evidence and if, after this candid consideration is heard by the jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt, The Law of Criminal Evidence, p. 34, Vol. 1, 5th Edn.