SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Page 28 Monday, October 24, 2022 Printed For: Navami Krishnamurthy, Jindal Global University SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- usually considered to be synonymous with the term greater weight of the evidence”, or “greater weight of the credible evidence”. It is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. To be satisfied, certain, or convinced is a much higher test than the test of “preponderance of evidence”. The phrase “preponderance of probability” appears to have been taken from Charles R. Cooper v. F. W. Slade, (185759) 6 HLC 746. The observations made therein make it clear that what “preponderance of probability” means “more probable and rational view of the case”, not necessarily as certain as the pleading should be. 101. Again, at the cost of repetition, we may state that it is not necessary for us to go into the issue of false explanation, said to have been offered by the accused appellant as at the most a false explanation can be used as an additional link in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution. This issue pales into insignificance as the various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution having not been satisfactorily proved. 102. The inalienable interface of presumption of innocence and the burden of proof in a criminal case on the prosecution has been succinctly expounded in the following passage from the treatise “The Law of Evidence” fifth edition by Ian Dennis at page 445: “The presumption of innocence states that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In one sense this simply restates in different language the rule that the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt. As explained above, the burden of proof rule has a number of functions, one of which is to provide a rule of decision for the fact-finder in a situation of uncertainty. Another function is to allocate the risk of mis-decision in criminal trials. Because the outcome of wrongful conviction is regarded as a significantly worse harm than wrongful acquittal the rule is constructed so as to minimise the risk of the former. The burden of overcoming a presumption that the defendant is innocent therefore requires the state to prove the defendant's guilt.” [Emphasis supplied] 103. The above quote thus seemingly concedes a preference to wrongful acquittal compared to the risk of wrongful conviction. Such is the abiding jurisprudential concern to eschew even the remotest possibility of unmerited conviction. 104. This applies with full force particularly in fact situations like the one on hand where the charge is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. These enunciations are so well entrenched that we do not wish to burden the present narration by referring to the decisions of this Court in this regard. 105. Addressing this aspect, however, is the following extract also from the same treatise “The Law of Evidence” fifth edition by Ian Dennis at page 483: “Where the case against the accused depends wholly or partly on inferences from circumstantial evidence, fact-finders cannot logically convict unless they are sure that inferences of guilt are the only ones that can reasonably be drawn. If they think that there are possible innocent explanations for circumstantial evidence that are not “merely fanciful”, it must follow that there is a reasonable doubt about guilt. There is no rule, however, that judges must direct juries in terms not to convict unless they are sure that the evidence bears no other explanation than guilt. It is sufficient to direct simply that the burden on the prosecution is to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt, or so that they are sure. The very high standard of proof required in criminal cases minimises the risk of a wrongful conviction. It means that someone whom, on the evidence, the fact-finder believes is “probably” guilty, or “likely” to be guilty will be acquitted, since these judgments of probability necessarily admit that the fact-finder is not “sure”. It is generally accepted that some at least of these acquittals will be of persons who are