Introduction:
We all are aware of the legal principle that ‘a person is innocent until/unless proven guilty’, this legal perspective is applicable to a person who is accused of any illegality. According to this principle, an accused will be given a fair trial and a chance to defend himself. There should be no doubt left in convicting such a person because it would be unfair for him and against his right. This article will look into the recent judgement of Gangadhar alias Gangaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh[1], where the apex court held that conviction to be proven beyond all reasonable doubts in the matters of Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS act).
Background
The appellant (Gangaram), sold his house to Gokul Dangi on 12.06.2009 and then it was registered in the presence of two witnesses (Tolaram and Ghasiram), who marked their fingerprints as signatures on the sale deed. Later after months, the police received information that inside the Gokul’s house, there is contraband. For search and seizure, the appellant and Ghasiram, a village chowkidar accompanied the police and identified the house.
The Police got inside the house after breaking the lock of the door, in the presence of appellant and Ghasiram, and recovered 48kgs 200gms of cannabis. After the investigation, the appellant was found guilty under section 8(c) read with section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and according to that he was given 10 years of rigorous imprisonment by the trial court. Appellant then appealed before the High Court, but the court upheld the judgement of the trial court. Later appellant appealed before the Supreme Court for relief.
Reasoning behind Finding Appellant Guilty
The appellant sold his house to Gokul Dangi in the presence of Ghasiram and Tolaram, but Tolaram denied giving any thumb impression on sale deed, so it was considered that the sale deed was fabricated document, and according to the voter list of 2008 the house belongs to the appellant and apart from that, records of village panchayat also shows that the appellant is the owner of the house. So on this basis, the appellant was found guilty.
Confuting the Reasoning
The first thing which needs to be noted is that the appellant was the one who helped the police in identifying the house. The sale agreement which was signed between Gokul and the appellant was produced before the police by the latter. However, the report was not investigated.
After the denial of Tolaram in giving any thumb impression, the sale deed was not sent for forensic, for confirmation that whether the document is fabricated or not. Ghasiram said that the appellant was living in the new house for 15 years and did not visit his old house (the one in question). Ghasiram’s statement was not verified during the investigation and the village panchayat’s report was also not examined. Relying on the judgement of Gopal v. State of M.P [2]it was contended from the side of the appellant that mere presumption of ownership of the house without any concrete evidence stands nowhere.
View of the Court
The Division Bench of Justice RF Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha observed the instant case with the view of section 35 and section 54 of NDPS Act, which states that a fact is said to be proved when court admits it beyond all reasonable doubts without any presumption and it is only presumed until/unless proved that the offence is committed under the act.
Considering the arguments of both sides, the court emphasised that the appellant executed the sale deed in the favour of Gokul Dangi on 12.06.2009 in the presence of two witnesses. On the secret information, police searched the house of Gokul Dangi on 11.08.2009 and recovered contraband, after appellant and Gashiram identified the house. So why would the appellant who has been living in a different house for 15 years, help the police in identifying the house where contraband was recovered and implicate himself. The very next day after recovery of contraband, appellant produced the sale agreement before the police but neither the document nor the panchayat record was examined for genuineness. The appellant’s name was there in voter list 2008 which shows that he is the owner of the house, but we should not ignore the fact that the sale agreement was executed on 12.06.2009 and registered on 26.06.2009. Court also relied on the judgement of Noor Aga v. State of Punjab[3] where it was said that initially the burden of proof is on prosecution and the standard of proving the guilt is beyond all reasonable doubts and the standard for accused is only preponderance of probability. If prosecution failed in proving the guilt of the accused then the sections 35 and 54 of the act will not come into picture. It is rebuttable to presume the culpability of the accused under section 35 and 54 of the NDPS act.
Investigation by the police was defective, incomplete, and casual in nature because of which the appellant suffered and was denied the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court acquitted the appellant and set aside the judgement of the High Court and Trial Court.
Conclusion
This is the much-needed judgement which gives the clear picture of the conviction under NDPS act, because of its stringent nature. No one should be convicted on the basis on presumption as we know that the imprisonment under the act extends to 20 years and the fine may extend to two lakhs, so without giving the accused fair trial and a mere presumption that the accused is guilty of an offence under this act would be vicious and against the liberty of the accused.
References:
[1] 2020 SCC OnLine SC 623
[2] (2020) 9 SCC 595
[3] (2008) 16 SCC 417
0 Comments