New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday, October 13, acquitted a man who had been charged with the murder of his wife and four children and had been sentenced to life in prison in 2011, noting that the pieces of circumstantial evidence used to convict him could not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.The court noted that the heinous nature of the crime the convict was accused of appeared to supersede the fundamental presumption of innocence of the alleged accused.Ramanand, the appellant, was accused of murdering his wife and children with a banka (a kind of dagger) while they were asleep in their home. The prosecution had alleged that Ramanand’s motive was that he was having an extra-marital affair with a married woman.According to a report in Live Law, the court of the sessions judge of Lakhimpur Kheri, hearing the case, had been presented with four incriminating circumstances to prove Ramanand’s guilt – the alleged murder weapon and bloodstained clothes were found with the accused; the accused provided an extra-judicial confession before two prosecution witnesses; the accused allegedly had a strong motive to commit the crime; and the accused behaved in an unnatural way and allegedly provided false information.On the basis of these circumstances, the trial court found Ramanand guilty under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to life in prison. His conviction and death sentence were later upheld by the Allahabad high court.After going over the evidence again, the bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) U.U. Lalit and Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and J.B. Pardiwala noted that none of the aforementioned pieces of evidence can be treated as incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence against the accused.“Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Though the offence is gruesome and revolts the human conscience but an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused,” Live Law quoted the bench as observing.Further, the court said that it has noted, on numerous occasions, that there is a long distance between “may be true” and “must be true” and that this distance must be bridged with “clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence” before on individual can be condemned a convict.Also read: A Look at Justice U.U. Lalit’s Career, India’s Next Chief Justice‘Fair defence’In the hearing, the top court also made observations regarding the duty of the state to provide counsel for the accused, noting that a ‘fair defence’ is not to provide the accused with a defence counsel “for name’s sake”.It noted that while the quality of defence provided can not be a factor to say that the right to a fair trial – under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution – was not provided, “a threshold level of competence and diligence” is a constitutionally guaranteed expectation. “The presence of counsel on record means effective, genuine and faithful presence and not a mere farcical, sham or a virtual presence that is illusory, if not fraudulent,” the court said.As such, the court said that “competent advocates” should be appointed by the state in such cases and not “patronising gestures to raw entrants to the Bar”.The court further said that the chosen advocate should be provided ample time and complete papers to defend the accused to the best of their abilities and in order to make the accused feel confident that his counsel has had enough time to prepare the case properly.“It is desirable that in such cases senior advocate practising in the trial court shall be requested to conduct the case himself or herself on behalf of the undefended accused or at least provide good guidance to the advocate who is appointed as amicus curiae or an advocate from the legal aid panel to defend the case of the accused persons,” the court said.