Presumption of Innocence: Why the Accused Starts as Innocent

 Presumption of Innocence 

When a crime happens, society reacts quickly.

We say:
“He must have done it.”
“Police arrested him, so he is guilty.”
“If he was innocent, why would he be charged?”

But criminal law begins with a powerful assumption:
The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This is called the Presumption of Innocence.

Where Does This Principle Come From?

This idea is not modern generosity instead it is a foundational rule of civilized legal systems. It was clearly articulated in English common law by William Blackstone who emphasized that it is better to let the guilty escape than to punish the innocent.

In modern international law, it is formally recognized in:

• Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
  
• Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Both state that:

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

This shows that presumption of innocence is not just legal theory, it is a human rights standard.

What Does “Presumed Innocent” Actually Mean?

It does not mean:

• The court believes the accused is morally pure.
• The judge thinks the accused did nothing.

It means, "The law starts from neutrality."

The burden is not on the accused to prove innocence. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt. This is the first safeguard against misuse of state power.

Why Is This Principle Necessary?

Because accusation is easy. The state has:

• Police
• Investigators
• Prosecutors
• Power
• Resources

The individual has:

• Liberty at stake

If the law did not presume innocence, the system would tilt heavily in favour of authority. Presumption of innocence balances that power.

The Logical Chain
Presumption of innocence leads to three consequences:

1.  The burden of proof lies on the prosecution
2.  Guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt
3.  Any remaining doubt benefits the accused

Without presumption of innocence, these protections collapse.

Example
Suppose someone is arrested for fraud.

Public opinion is against him. Media labels him “mastermind.” Social media declares him guilty.

But in court, the prosecution must still prove:

• That the accused committed the act
• That the act meets the legal definition of fraud
• That intent existed

If they fail, the court must acquit, not because the accused is “morally innocent,” but because guilt was not proven.

A Common Misunderstanding

People often say: “Why give criminals so many rights?” they dont understand, presumption of innocence does not protect criminals, it protects citizens.

Because before conviction, every accused person is a citizen, not a criminal. If the state could punish without proof, no one would be safe from accusation.

Constitutional Dimension

In many legal systems, including Pakistan, the idea is tied to:

• Article 4 (due process of law)
• Article 10A (right to fair trial)

Though the Constitution may not use the exact phrase “presumption of innocence,” courts interpret fair trial rights to include it. This shows how deeply embedded the doctrine is.

The Philosophy
Presumption of innocence is not about sympathy. It is about restraint. It tells the state:
Before you take a person’s liberty, you must satisfy strict legal standards.
It reminds society:
Accusation is not conviction, Suspicion is not proof., Arrest is not guilt.

The Crux
In society, we often begin with suspicion. In law, we begin with innocence. This difference defines civilization.

Welcome back to Legal Bethak.
From Classroom to Courtroom.