Introduction
May it please the Court. The Accused stands charged with serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, and the prosecution must prove each element of the case beyond reasonable doubt. The
Defence submits from the outset that the evidence adduced by the prosecution fails to meet this high
standard. Under our law, the Accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is the burden of the
prosecution, at all times, to establish the Accused’s guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. If there is any
doubt, the Accused must be given the benefit of it. In this opening statement, the Defence will briefly
outline why the prosecution case is inherently doubtful and why the Court should be guided by these
shortcomings in the evidence.
The prosecution alleges that on the night in question the Accused forcibly took ₹25,000 and a mobile
phone from the complainant at knifepoint and fled. As the Defence will show, the evidence in support of
this narrative is riddled with inconsistencies and uncertainties. Crucial aspects of the prosecution’s
account are either improbable or unsupported by credible proof. The Accused fully denies the allegations
and asserts that the prosecution has not produced reliable evidence linking him to the crime. Our plea is
simply that the case presented fails to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof
The Court is enjoined by law to evaluate this prosecution evidence with a critical eye. As noted, under the
BNSS the Accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. The Defence respectfully reminds the Court
of the legal standard: the prosecution’s proof must exclude every reasonable doubt. This is the highest
standard of proof in our legal system, and it must be met for a conviction. If after considering the whole
of the evidence any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the Accused’s innocence remains, the Court is
bound to give the Accused the benefit of that doubt.
In the present case, the prosecution’s evidence falls well short of this standard. Due to the factors noted—
contradictory accounts, unexplained delays, lack of objective corroboration, and suspicious
circumstances—there is, at a minimum, substantial doubt about the truth of the allegations. The Defence
submits that the law requires an acquittal under such circumstances. The Accused should not suffer in the
face of such uncertainty.
Anticipated Defence Approach
Without going into the detailed evidence that will be called, the Defence wishes to briefly outline the
approach it will take. Through careful cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses, the Defence will
expose the inconsistencies and test the reliability of their claims. The Defence will further present any
evidence it deems necessary to counter the prosecution’s account. But even without calling additional
evidence, the existing record already contains significant doubt as to the Accused’s guilt.
The Defence will demonstrate that key witnesses lack credibility and that there is a lack of any
independent support for the prosecution’s story. Ultimately, the Defence will submit that when all
evidence is considered, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no true, trustworthy evidence that
the Accused committed the offence. The defence trusts that the Court will see the prosecution’s case for
what it is: an allegation unsupported by reliable proof.
Conclusion
The Defence respectfully submits that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof. The
Accused stands accused of a grave crime, but the case against him is built on a shaky foundation. Material
contradictions, delays, missing evidence, and improbable facts have all been highlighted. None of these
observations need be the sole reason for acquittal; rather, taken together they create multiple reasonable
doubts.
The Defence will demonstrate through evidence and through careful cross-examination of the
prosecution’s witnesses that the only just verdict in this case is an acquittal. Given the law and the
evidence (or lack thereof), the Accused must be given the benefit of every doubt. It is respectfully
submitted that the Court should honour the presumption of innocence and hold that the prosecution has
not proved the guilt of the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defence is confident that ultimately
the Accused is entitled to an honourable acquittal.
Thank you, Your Honour.
