Stresses on differentiating between `may be true’ and `must be true’; mere conjectures and sure conclusions
Srinagar: The High Court on Wednesday set aside conviction and sentence awarded by a trial court to a government employee in a corruption case registered in 2009.
The conviction was set aside after an appeal by the accused employee, Mansoor Ahmad Malik, against the judgment — conviction and sentence — passed by the court of Special Judge, Anticorruption (Additional Sessions Judge Pulwama) on December 03, 2015.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul while allowing the appeal held that the prosecution has failed to prove clearly and explicitly the demand of illegal gratification.
Referring to an apex court judgment, Justice Koul said that “in a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions”. He added that in a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof.
The bench said “the large distance between ‘may be’ true and ‘must be’ true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied.”
It continued “in such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be true’ and `must be true’, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as the quality and credibility of evidence brought on record.”
Judge Koul emphasised that the courts must ensure that miscarriage of justice be avoided. “If the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense.”
The convicted employee Malik was working in J&K Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department. He was sentenced to two years jail in a case FIR No.26/2009 of Police Station VOK, after being held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He had been sentenced to three year imprisonment and a penalty of Rs 25,000.
