Lawyer should defend a person accused of a crime regardless of his personal
opinion as to his guilt.A party has a right to have his case decided upon the
law and evidence on record. The supplementary right is exercised by the advocate
when he presents every view of the case presented to the minds of the Court
which can legitimately bear upon issue involved in the case. The judge of the
Court certainly hears and weights both sides while deciding the case.
A party in person for want of learning experience is unable to exercise his
supplementary right in a proper manner. A lawyer or an advocate is not morally
responsible for the act of a party in maintaining an unjust cause or for the
error of the Court.
In criminal matters, the burden of proof lies in the prosecution and the
possibility of proving guilt is not enough, the proof of guilt that is required
in criminal cases must certainly be beyond reasonable doubt.It is the
prosecution s duty to satisfy the Court before arriving at the Verdict that
crime is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The Rule of reasonable doubt is an instrument which is given to a lawyer for
using in favour of persons accused of a crime. The rule is not an invention but
a well settled on the anvil of experience. The rule is an Accord with the notion
as to how justice should be administered.
Further if a lawyer representations is sought to defend a person accused of a
crime,in that situation the lawyer keeps himself in place of the person accused
of the crime. A person must be treated as innocent till the prosecution proves
the guilt of a person accused of a crime beyond reasonable doubt.
Law and Logic are intersecting circles and cover each other in as much as Rule
15 , Section Ii , under part VI of Bar Council of India Rules
Rule 15 - It shall be duty of an advocate fearlessly to uphold the interests of
his client. by all fair and favourable means without regard to any unpleasant
consequences to him self or any person. He shall defend a person accused of a
crime regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, bearing
upon in mind that his loyalty is to the Law which requires that no nan should be
convicted without adequate evidence.