Equipoise Rule in Criminal Cases
When evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced between the prosecution and the defense, the equipoise rule comes into play. This rule ensures that the scales of justice remain unbiased and tilted in favor of the presumption of innocence of the accused.
Definition of the Equipoise Rule
The High Court defines the equipoise rule as a principle where inculpatory facts and circumstances can be interpreted in multiple ways, some pointing to the innocence of the accused and others to their guilt. In such cases, if there is doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the evidence is not considered sufficient to support a conviction.
Application of the Equipoise Rule
Even when evidence is evenly balanced, the presumption of innocence prevails, and the scales of justice are not tipped in either direction. The acquittal of the accused is not solely based on the equipoise rule but on the failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Reasonable Doubt and Acquittal
Acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, indicating that the prosecution’s evidence was not strong enough to prove the guilt of the accused with moral certainty. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution, and failure to meet this standard leads to acquittal.
It is crucial for the prosecution to present a clear and persuasive case to justify a conviction. If the burden of proof is not met, the court’s duty is to acquit the accused rather than risk imprisoning an innocent person.
Presumption of Innocence
The presumption of innocence prevails when there is reasonable doubt in a case. In situations where evidence is evenly matched between the prosecution and the defense, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the accused, ensuring that justice is served.
Therefore, if the evidence presented by both parties is evenly stacked, the court must uphold the presumption of innocence and acquit the accused due to the presence of reasonable doubt.
