Does the view favourable to the accused prevail in criminal jurisprudence where two views are reasonably possible on the evidence?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — s.149 — Murder — Circumstantial evidence — Eyewitness identification — Benefit of doubt — Evidence Act, 1872 — Night-time eyewitness identification — Held: Identification of an assailant cannot be relied upon where it rests only on the sound of assault on a pitch-dark night. Where only the accused carried the torch light, the witnesses could not have identified anybody by it. (¶19, 21) Evidence Act, 1872 — Circumstantial evidence — Panchsutra test — Held further: A conviction on circumstantial evidence must rest on a complete chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Each circumstance must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, and of a conclusive nature. (¶23) Evidence Act, 1872 — Circumstantial evidence — Individual proof of each circumstance — Held further: Each circumstance relied on in a case resting on circumstantial evidence must be proved individually before the circumstances can collectively point to the guilt of the accused. The circumstance of identification, once discarded, cannot be treated as proved. (¶31, 32) Criminal jurisprudence — Benefit of doubt — Two reasonable views — Held further: Where two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, criminal jurisprudence requires the view favourable to the accused to prevail. The prosecution having failed to establish a complete chain, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt; appeals allowed. (¶33, 34, 35)