Reasonable Doubt - Law Dictionary Search Results
Home Dictionary Name: reasonable doubtReasonable doubt
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...
beyond a reasonable doubt
beyond a reasonable doubt The standard in a criminal case that must be met by the prosecution in order to convict the defendant. It means the evidence is fully satisfied, all the facts are proven and guilt is established. Source: FindLaw ...
proof beyond a reasonable doubt
proof beyond a reasonable doubt see burden of proof. Source: Federal Judicial Center ...
reasonable doubt
reasonable doubt ...
Benefit of doubt
Benefit of doubt, Where evidence really raises a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court regarding the participation in the crime by the first respondent, that doubt must be resolved in his favour, however, the benefit of doubt to which the accused is entitled to reasonable doubt-the doubt which rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy-though unwittingly it may be-or is afraid of the logical consequences, if that benefit was not given, State of U.P. v. Iftikhar Khan, AIR 1973 SC 863: (1973) 1 SCC 512: (1973) 3 SCR 328....
Shadow of doubt
Shadow of doubt, in its practical application in circumstantial evidence, the test which requires the exclusion of other alternative hypothesis is far more rigorous than the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt, Shankarlal G. Dixit v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765: (1981) 2 SCC 35: (1981) Cr LJ 325....
Reasonable hypothesis
Reasonable hypothesis, before a person can be con-victed on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. But in assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no place. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities, Awadhi Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 69 (70): (1971) 3 SCC 116....
Proved
Proved, there is no difference between the general rules of evidence in civil and criminal cases, and the definition of 'proved' in s. 3 of the Evidence Act does not draw a distinction between civil and criminal cases. Nor does this definition insist on perfect proof because absolute certainty amounting to demonstration is rarely to be had in the affairs of life. Nevertheless, the standard of measuring proof prescribed by the definition, is that of a person of prudence and practical good sense. 'Proof' means the effect of the evidence adduced in the case, Ch. Razik Ram v. Ch. Jaswant Singh Chouhan, AIR 1975 SC 667: (1975) 4 SCC 769.(ii) S. 3 of the Evidence Act, a fact is said to be 'proved' when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable than a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. This definition of 'proved' does not draw any distinctio...
standard of proof
standard of proof :the level of certainty and the degree of evidence necessary to establish proof in a criminal or civil proceeding [the standard of proof to convict is proof beyond a reasonable doubt] see also clear and convincing, preponderance of the evidence compare burden of proof clear and convincing evidence at evidence, reasonable doubt NOTE: Preponderance of the evidence is the least demanding standard of proof and is used for most civil actions and some criminal defenses (as insanity). Clear and convincing proof is a more demanding standard of proof and is used in certain civil actions (as a civil fraud suit). Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the most demanding standard and the one that must be met for a criminal conviction. ...
Satisfied
Satisfied, means, free from anxiety, doubt, per-plexity, suspense or uncertainty. In order that a magistrate be relieved of all doubts or uncertainties and for his mind to be reasonably certain or free from doubt, it is necessary that he should permit parties concerned to place before him sufficient material, justifying initiation of the proceedings, Faquir Chand v. Bhana Ram, AIR 1957 Punj 303.Satisfied, the word 'satisfied' must mean 'satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities' and not 'satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt'. S.. 23 does not alter the standard of proof in civil cases, Dr. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534: (1975) 2 SCC 326: (1975) 3 SCR 967....
- << Prev.
- Next >>
Sign-up to get more results
Unlock complete result pages and premium legal research features.
Start Free Trial