SC expounds Right to fair Investigation is a facet of Right to Fair Trial guaranteed to accused under Article 21 of the Constitution [Read Judgment]

On 5^th Aug 2020, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Gangadhar v. State of Madhya Pradesh comprising of Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha acquitted the man accused in possession of 48Kgs 200gms of ganja(Cannabis) and held that Right to fair Investigation is a Right to Fair Trial guaranteed to accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Factual Background

The appellant assails his conviction under Section 8C r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for the recovery of 48kgs 200gms. Cannabis (ganja) sentencing him to 10 yrs of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was held to be the owner of the house in question from which the ganja was recovered, relying upon the voter's list of 2008 rejecting his defence that he had sold the house of the co-accused Gokul Dangi in the year 2009.  Gokul Dangi is acquitted in the present matter.

Appellant Contention and Submissions

Appellant submitted that the conviction based on a mere presumption of ownership of the house, without any findings of conscious possession, was unstainable.

The entries in the village panchayat records with regard to ownership of the house had not been investigated. The appellant was subsequently made an accused during the investigation because of the failure of the police to investigate properly.

State Contentions and Submissions

The state submitted that the deed was therefore rightly held to be a forged and fabricated document confirmed by the voter list entry of 2008 that the house belonged to the appellant. The village panchayat record also mentioned the ownership of the Appellant.

 Supreme Court findings and Judgment

Supreme Court in its findings stated that “The presumption against the accused of culpability under Section 35, and under Section 54 of the Act to explain possession satisfactorily, are rebuttable. It does not dispense with the obligation of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumptive provision with the reverse burden of proof does not sanction conviction on the basis of preponderance of probability. Section 35(2( provides that a fact can be said to have been proved if it is established beyond reasonable doubt and not on the preponderance of probability. That the right of the accused to a fair trial could not be whittled down under the Act.”

The Court further stated that the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, such as Section 37, the minimum sentence of 10 years, absence of any provision for remission do not dispense with the requirement of the prosecution to establish a prima facie case beyond a reasonable doubt after investigation, only where after which the burden of proof shall shift to the accused.

The appellant has been denied the right to a fair investigation, which is a facet of a fair trial guaranteed to every accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Conviction of the appellant is held to be unsustainable and is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com