Does a reasonable hypothesis of innocence emerging from the prosecution's own evidence entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?

Paragraph 18More pertinently, the eyewitnesses speak of A1 carrying a ‘licensed’ weapon and A2 carrying a pistol. On the mere sight of a weapon, it cannot be identified as one licensed. We pertinently observe that, this smacks of premeditation to frame the accused, who is known to have a licensed weapon. But unfortunately, the I.O did nothing to produce the license and prove at least that the accused had access to such a weapon. The circumstances, as we see, do not lead solely to the hypothesis of guilt and a lingering doubt, quite reasonable in the facts and circumstances brought out by the prosecution itself, that there could be a hypothesis of innocence. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra[^2], speaks of such hypothesis of innocence, if available, restraining the court from entering a conviction.

Paragraph 20Due to the discrepancies and the inconsistencies, we are unable to place faith on the oral testimony of eyewitnesses. In that circumstance, the reasonable doubt regarding a hypothesis of innocence assumes relevance. We must emphasize that despite specific overt acts alleged on the other accused, the Trial Court acquitted them, affirmed by the High Court.

Paragraph 21In the totality of the circumstances, we are persuaded to give the appellants herein the benefit of doubt and, hence, we acquit them.