Doctrine of the balance or preponderance of probabilities - Indian Laws - General

Doctrine of the balance or preponderance of probabilities In Miller v Minister of Pensions , Lord Denning, J (as the Master of Rolls then was) defined the doctrine of the balance or preponderance of probabilities in the following terms : (1) It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence, of course it is possible, but not in the least probable the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice. The law recognises that within the standard of preponderance of probabilities , there could be different degrees of probability. This was succinctly summarized by Denning, LJ in Bater v Bater , where he formulated the principle thus : So also in civil cases, the case must be proved by a preponderance of probability, but there may be degrees of probability within that standard. The degree depends on that subject matter. In State of U P v Krishna Gopal , this Court observed: 26. The concepts of probability , and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the Judge. M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LRS. VERSUS MAHANT SURESH DAS AND ORS. - 2019 (11) TMI 1396 - SUPREME COURT