Question

The ``Exclusion of Every Other Hypothesis'' rule acts as a safeguard against:

• A. The admission of hearsay evidence in court.
• B. Convicting an innocent person when the evidence is purely inferential and non-exclusive.
• C. The use of forensic evidence in small-scale criminal trials.
• D. The cross-examination of the primary investigator.

Hint:

In cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, every reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused must be excluded. If any reasonable doubt remains, the accused receives the benefit of doubt.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Concept: The passage explains that when a conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, every reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused must be excluded. If two reasonable views are possible, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Step 1: Read the relevant statement from the passage.
The passage states that the facts proved must be incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt, and if two views are possible, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

Step 2: Analyse the options.

• The admission of hearsay evidence in court -- Incorrect.

• Convicting an innocent person when the evidence is purely inferential and non-exclusive -- Correct.

• The use of forensic evidence in small-scale criminal trials -- Incorrect.

• The cross-examination of the primary investigator -- Incorrect.

Step 3: Final conclusion.
Hence, the rule safeguards against \[ \boxed{\text{convicting an innocent person on incomplete or inconclusive circumstantial evidence}.} \]