Section 10

This rule protects the basic principle that punishment must fit proven guilt. When evidence clearly shows a person did something wrong but doesn't pin down exactly which of a few related offences it was, the law refuses to guess in the harsher direction. Instead, it resolves the doubt in the accused's favour by applying the lightest applicable punishment. This mirrors the broader criminal law idea that uncertainty should benefit the accused, and it carries forward almost word-for-word from Section 72 of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, into the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Indian courts have historically applied this provision in cases involving alternative charges, such as when evidence supports either theft or receiving stolen property but doesn't clearly establish which, or when a death could have resulted from either culpable homicide or a lesser injury offence. Courts have consistently held that this section applies only when there is genuine, reasoned doubt between specific named offences after a full trial—it is not a shortcut to avoid analyzing evidence, but a fallback rule for those rare cases where the evidence, taken as a whole, points to guilt but not to one precise offence.

• Myth: This section lets courts convict someone without proving any specific crime.
  Fact: The court must still be convinced beyond doubt that the person committed one of the named offences; only the choice between which specific offence remains uncertain.
• Myth: This provision reduces punishment automatically in every unclear case.
  Fact: It applies narrowly—only when a judgment names specific alternative offences and doubt exists between them, not in general cases of vague or insufficient evidence.