Presumptions In NDPS Act Do Not Dispense With Prosecutions' Burden To Prove The Charge Beyond Reasonable Doubt: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court, in Naresh Kumar vs State of HP, has held that presumption provisions in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against an accused does not dispense with the obligation of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt.

A bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Navin Sinha, while restoring a trial court’s findings of acquittal and setting aside a high court judgment, observed that the presumptive provision with reverse burden of proof does not sanction conviction on the basis of preponderance of probability.

In the instant case, the high court had reversed the order of acquittal by the trial court. On appeal, in the facts of the case, the court observed: “If an independent witness is available, and the prosecution initially seeks to rely upon him, it cannot suddenly discard the witness because it finds him inconvenient, and place reliance upon police witnesses only. In the stringent nature of the provisions of the Act, the reverse burden of proof, the presumption of culpability under Section 35, and the presumption against the accused under Section 54, any reliance upon Section 114 of the Evidence Act in the facts of the present case, can only be at the risk of a fair trial to the accused.”

The court observed: “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 all reasonable doubt.”

“Section 35 (2) provides that a fact can be said to have been proved if it is established beyond reasonable doubt and not on preponderance of probability,” the bench said, having found that the prosecution in this case,  had failed to establish the foundational facts beyond all reasonable doubt.

Read the Judgment Here