INTRODUCTION
William Blackstone famously said, “It is better to let ten guilty people go free than to condemn one innocent person wrongfully.” The same has been translated into the legal maxim “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat”, which says, “The burden of proof lies on the one who declares, not on the one who denies.” This is a fundamental legal principle in a democratic system. It protects against fraudulent cases and convictions in the hands of small individuals who can become victims. The principle ensures that the prosecution has the burden of proof.
In India, the presumption of innocence is supported by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. The same has been established in multiple landmark cases like Woolmington v. DPP. It means that a person cannot be found guilty without proper evidence. The question that may arise is why we must prove guilt; rather, why can’t we prove the opposite? Well, to answer that, we know that it is difficult to prove negative, and that’s why we go with proving positive.
EVOLUTION OF THE PRINCIPLE
The principle of presumption of innocence is traced back to Ancient Roman law, where the burden of proving guilt was upon the accuser rather than the accused. However, this notion waned during the medieval era with the rise of practices like trial by ordeal and the inquisitorial system.
During the 17th and 18th centuries, English common law codified and expanded this doctrine. Legal scholar Sir William Blackstone famously promoted the doctrine, holding it of special importance. But perhaps the decisive moment was during the landmark case Woolmington v. DPP, during which the House of Lords decisively placed the burden upon the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, thus putting this doctrine forever at the center of English common law.
In the 20th century, this principle received formal recognition at an international level. Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) confirmed it as a worldwide standard for fair trials.
RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE
India has based this presumption of innocence on the colonial inheritance of the common law system, though uncodified. Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution safeguards against self-incrimination, meaning that defendants cannot be made to answer questions that may incriminate them.
This doctrine is crucial in India due to the far-reaching social implications of crime, even in individual cases. It is the responsibility of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This aligns with the principle of burden of proof, where the accused is not required to establish innocence unless doubt is reasonably eliminated. In addition, the principle is recognized as a fundamental right and is protected through Article 21. It is, therefore, a core principle in the criminal justice system because it guards against wrong oppression and guarantees that everyone gets a just trial so that no one can be convicted based on mere assumptions. The principle balances the right of the state to punish with the protection of the individual from abuse, hence upholding civil liberties. This finally means it epitomizes democratic principles and fortifies trust in the judiciary.
APPLICATION OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN INDIA
Constitutional Basis:
Article 21: The Constitution of India ensures the right to life and personal liberty, which is inclusive of the presumption of innocence by its very nature. This means that no person shall be deprived of either of these rights except according to the procedure established by law.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: While the BNS and BNSS do not directly reference the principle of innocence, they support this principle by mandating that the prosecution proves the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and ensure that the accused’s innocence is preserved throughout the judicial process.
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023:
Section 104: The burden of proof lies with the party making the assertion.
Section 105: It further clarifies that the burden falls on the party who would lose the case if no evidence is presented.
EXCEPTIONS TO THIS PRINCIPLE
Although essential, this principle has many exceptions. For example, under the NDPS Act, of 1985, the burden of proof shifts to the accused once contraband is found in their possession. Furthermore, the PMLA, 2002, along with other anti-terrorism laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, has shifted the burden of proof in some cases, especially those relating to economic crimes.
CASE LAWS
- Narendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P. (2004)
- Facts: The Appellants were found guilty of murder based on witness testimony and some circumstantial evidence. The defense argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Judgment: The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, stating that when the evidence presents two possible interpretations—one suggesting the accused’s guilt and the other pointing to their innocence—the court should favor the interpretation supporting the accused.
- Significance: This case is often cited in discussions about the burden of proof in criminal trials and the continued presumption of innocence until a conviction is obtained.
- Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)
- Facts: It was a case of circumstantial evidence wherein the accused was found guilty of murder. The trial court had pronounced its verdict, which was challenged in appeal with the submission that the evidence was not sufficient.
- Judgment: Acquitting the accused, the Supreme Court outlined five key principles, or “panchsheel,” that must be followed in cases based on circumstantial evidence. One of these principles stated that the circumstances must be decisive, consistent solely with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt, and must exclude any plausible explanation of innocence.
- Significance: This case holds importance for clearly indicating the handling of circumstantial evidence in circumstances where the presumption of innocence prevails.
- Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (1979)
- Facts: This public interest litigation brought into focus the plight of under-trial prisoners who were released after spending years in jail without undergoing a trial.
- Judgment: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court declared that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further held that no person shall be detained indefinitely or arrested without trial, for this is consistent with the presumption of innocence.
- Significance: The right to a speedy trial and procedural fairness are the very foundation of the presumption of innocence.
CHALLENGES
The principle of presumption of innocence forms the fundamental foundation of the Indian criminal justice system. However, it faces numerous challenges while being implemented in real life. It leaves a lot to judicial interpretation, which often leads to inconsistencies, especially when state interests outweigh individual rights.
Statutory provisions, such as those in the BNS, 2023, indirectly uphold the presumption by placing the burden of proof on the prosecution. However, without explicit codification, it remains within judicial discretion, which might lead to its neglect. In the same line, BSA, 2023 reinforces the burden of the prosecution with yet again lack of clear acknowledgment of a presumption of innocence as a separate principle resulting in its inconsistent application. In BNSS, 2023, procedural safeguards remain unchanged but do little to enhance the presumption of innocence, thus further raising questions over its adequacy.
So far, judicial decisions have upheld the presumption of innocence. However, with a growing trend towards special laws that shift the burden of proof, such as the NDPS Act, PMLA, and UAPA, this presumption is indeed under tremendous challenge. Here, the accused person is compelled to prove their innocence, while it is supposed to be a situation where guilt has to be proved by the prosecution. Such reversals disproportionately affect marginalized communities and exacerbate systemic inequality in the justice system.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, while Indian law is dominated by the core principle of the presumption of innocence, the application process remains complex and prone to challenges. The lack of explicit statutory recognition, coupled with the rise of laws that dilute its enforcement, raises concerns about protecting individual rights. The Indian judiciary has remained committed to upholding the principle. Still, with this increasing exception endangering its bedrock status, legislative reforms of criminal law with a focus on uniform application must be pursued towards reinforcing the principle, for the benefit of individual rights, and ultimately giving India’s system of criminal jurisprudence credence.
Author(s) Name: Devishi Karamchandani (Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad)
