People will very soon learn the concept of witnesses going hostile but there head will explode that there have been instances when despite witnesses turning hostile to the prosecution, the accused/appellant was still found guilty and convicted.
The court has to scrutinise the evidence of Prosecution to satisfy itself whether the procedural safeguards have been observed and if so satisfied, they can give verdict in support of Prosecution.
It is well settled at this stage that in a case where on the basis of evidence available on record two possible views emerge on record, the view favouring the accused has to be believed and the benefit of doubt to be given to him and not to the prosecution. Otherwise also, in the Act, there is provision of stringent punishment if an offender is found to have committed the office.
Therefore, the proof to connect the accused with the commission of the offence must be beyond all reasonable doubt and the initial burden to bring the guilt home to an accused booked for the commission of an offence under the Act lies on the prosecution. A heightened scrutiny test would be necessary to be invoked. and A higher degree of assurance, thus, would be necessary to convict an accused.
For their ease:
Current Affairs
1k