[COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL]

1942 Present: Hearne, Keuneman, and de Kretser JJ.

THE KING v. DURAISAMY.

3-M. C. Jaffna, 17,071.

Burden of proof-Comment by Judge on failure of accused to give evidence .Evidence implicating accused-Reasonable doubt-Accused entitled to the benefit of it whether he gave evidence or not-Failure of Judge to point it out to Jury-Misdirection.

Where in the course of the summing up, the Judge told the Jury that" on evidence being adduced, which implicated the accused, the fact that he had not given evidence entitled them to draw an inference against him" without explaining to them the nature of the inference; and where the Judge also told them "that in deciding the Crown case whether it had been established beyond reasonable doubt, they were to take notice that the prisoner had not given evidence at all" without pointing out to them that the existence of a reasonable doubt endured to the benefit of the accused, whether he gave evidence or not,

Held, that the principle, that the standard of proof required in criminal cases remains constant, irrespective of the fact that the accused has not given evidence, may not hav