FACT FINDING, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE & REASONABLE DOUBT IN CIVIL & CRIMINAL TRIALS

“It is known maxim of law that it is better to acquit a guilty person than punish an innocent one”. How does law support and help to achieve this maxim is to be examined through civil and criminal trials' procedures and announcement of judgments by the courts. To give a final verdict any trial has to find the facts of the case and then apply Law to the same. But facts may have other circumstances that can drastically change the potential reasons for that fact to take place. To sieve through the facts and reasons Law demands from litigants to present the evidence (documentary or witnesses) to the judge. Objective justice can only be achieved when a court system admits only most relevant and trustworthy evidence. The burden of producing evidence is on party what they allege or deny. But Guilt or innocence needs to be established without any doubt to fully practice the maxim quoted above. This article seeks to examine the burden to bring evidence placed on parties in adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems and concept of “reasonable doubt” in the evidences which can change the course of a trial and hence bring unexpected judgment. The article also seeks to highlight common factors in Islamic Law and common law principles regarding proof and reasonable doubt.