before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, the court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, Ashish Batham v. State of M.P., Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., State v. Mahender Singh Dahiya and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P.)
