The advantage derived from doubt about guilt, a possible error or the weight of the evidence. In a criminal case the accused gets the benefit of doubt.

If the facts and circumstances are susceptible of two interpretations, one in favour of the prosecution and the other in support of the defence version then the rule which applies to circumstantial evidence would prevail and the benefit of doubt, if any would have to go to the accused. The doubt must be such as reasonable men may reasonably entertain and not the doubt of a weak and vacillating mind. (Jamal Vs. State (1986) 38 DLR 284)

Benefit of accused goes to the accused if doubt arises. [State Vs. Manik Bala (1989) 41 DLR 435]

Evidence being contradictory on the question of recognition and there being no circumstantial evidence lending support to the deposition of the sole eye witness, the prosecution case cannot be found to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. [Nurul and Others vs. State 14 BLD (HCD) 221]