beyond reasonable doubt

In a criminal trial the prosecution must prove every ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a real doubt based on reason and common sense arising from the evidence or lack of it, not a fanciful, imaginary or trivial doubt. If such a doubt remains, the accused gets the benefit of it and must be acquitted.

The standard is higher than the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities. For circumstantial evidence, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (1984) laid down five principles: the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclude every other hypothesis, and form a complete chain. The standard does not require proof beyond all possible doubt.

Example

Because the chain of circumstances had a gap about the time of death, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was acquitted.

In Indian law

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 INSC 121
• Section 2(1)(j), Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (old s.3 Evidence Act): meaning of proved

See also

standard of proof · burden of proof · presumption of innocence · circumstantial evidence

Read more in the study notes

• Penal provisions for dishonour of cheques (ss.138-148) and the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (Banking Law)
• General exceptions: mistake, accident, necessity and incapacity (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
• The right of private defence (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
• Introduction to the law of evidence and its central conceptions (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam)
• Burden of proof: the general rules (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam)
• Burden of proof: exceptions, special knowledge and statutory shifts (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam)