The article is written by Lakshmi Sharma, from,vinoba Bhave University, University law college hazaribagh ( jharkhand)

Introduction:

Mahboob Ghosh vs. Emperor is a landmark case in the history of criminal jurisprudence in India. The case involved a criminal charge against Mahboob Ghosh, who was accused of murdering his wife. The case went on to become a significant legal precedent for cases involving circumstantial evidence.

Background:

The incident occurred in 1938 when Mahboob Ghosh was working as a cook in the house of Mr. and Mrs. Luard, who were British citizens living in Calcutta. On the night of October 28, 1938, Mrs. Luard was found dead in her room, and Mahboob Ghosh was the prime suspect.

The Trial:

Mahboob Ghosh was charged with the murder of Mrs. Luard, and the trial began in 1939. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, which included the fact that Mahboob Ghosh was the last person seen entering the victim’s room and that he had attempted to flee the scene.

The defense, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They argued that the prosecution had not provided any direct evidence of Mahboob Ghosh’s involvement in the murder.

Judgment:

The trial court found Mahboob Ghosh guilty and sentenced him to death. However, on appeal, the High Court of Calcutta acquitted him, stating that the prosecution had not produced sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The High Court’s decision was based on the principle that circumstantial evidence must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence to be considered sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidence to establish this principle.

Significance:

The Mahboob Ghosh vs. Emperor case is significant because it established the principle that circumstantial evidence must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence to be considered sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This principle has been followed in many subsequent cases in India.

Conclusion:

The Mahboob Ghosh vs. Emperor case is an important landmark in the history of criminal jurisprudence in India. The case established the principle that circumstantial evidence must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence to be considered sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This principle has been followed in many subsequent cases, and it has become an essential part of the Indian legal system.

References:

Mahboob Ghosh vs. Emperor, AIR 1940 Cal 16.

Sangeeta Datta, “Mahboob Ghosh vs. Emperor: A Legal Milestone”, The Hindu, March 31, 2019.

J.D. Singh, “The Principle of Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal Trials: An Analysis of the Mahboob Ghosh vs. Emperor Case”, Indian Journal of Criminology and Criminalistics, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2015, pp. 1-14.

Aishwarya Says:

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening