It is often said that the reasonable-doubt standard plays a vital role in protecting the rights of the accused in a criminal case.

Since “beyond a reasonable doubt” is determined by the court, as the law states: “full satisfaction of the court”, courts must elaborate in each case how the prosecution was able to prove beyond doubt. Our courts generally do not specify how each of the elements of the offence is proved and why the court considers such as beyond reasonable doubt. However, in many instances, the decisions are either vague or lack how the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 96.2 of Civil and Criminal Procedure Code 2001 states: “finding of guilt against one or more of the parties can only be given when the prosecution to the satisfaction of the Court has established a proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”Īs a result, in every conviction in Bhutan, the judgment states that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt as per Section 96.2 of the CCPC and as per the evidence submitted by the prosecution. This legal maxim imposes a duty on the prosecutor to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt in respect of “assessing the evidence in criminal cases.” It differs from one court to another and from one judge to another. The concept of beyond reasonable is known to everyone yet this remains uncertain.

Law terms beyond a shadow of a doubt