Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently reaffirmed the legal principle that prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985, requires establishing that the contraband was seized from the conscious possession of the accused. In the case of Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 100), the Court held that both physical possession and mental awareness of the contraband are essential elements for proving an offence under the NDPS Act.

This judgment has significant implications for criminal jurisprudence, reinforcing the necessity for law enforcement agencies to meet the burden of proof before invoking stringent provisions of the NDPS Act. This article delves into the legal doctrine of conscious possession, the evidentiary requirements, and the broader implications of the judgment.

The Concept of ‘Conscious Possession’ Under the NDPS Act

The term “conscious possession” is crucial in cases under the NDPS Act, as mere physical proximity to the contraband is not enough to establish criminal liability. The Supreme Court, in the present case, reiterated that conscious possession entails:

1. Physical Control – The accused must have physical custody or access to the contraband.
2. Mental Awareness – The accused must be aware of the presence and illegal nature of the substance.

This aligns with previous judgments where courts have emphasized that prosecution must establish both elements before shifting the burden of proof to the accused under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.

The Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Burden of Proof on the Prosecution

The Court clarified that the *initial burden of proving possession lies with the prosecution. If the prosecution fails to establish conscious possession, the *presumption of guilt under Section 54 does not apply.

“It is the burden of the prosecution to establish that the contraband was seized from the conscious possession of the accused. Only when that aspect has been successfully proved by the prosecution, the onus will shift to the accused to account for the possession legally and satisfactorily.”

2. Evidence of Conscious Possession

In this case, the accused was found sitting on a carton containing contraband, with two more cartons placed next to him. The accused claimed he had no connection with the boxes and had been merely sitting near them.

The Court, however, found this explanation unsatisfactory and upheld the presumption of conscious possession, citing the lack of a plausible alternative explanation.

“We do not find any satisfactory reply or explanation as to how come he was sitting on one of the cartons and the other two cartons were closely placed next to him.”

3. Application of Section 54 NDPS Act

Once the prosecution established the prima facie case of possession, Section 54 came into play, shifting the burden to the accused to prove lawful possession. Since the accused failed to provide a valid explanation, the Court upheld his conviction.

Legal Precedents on Conscious Possession

This judgment aligns with past Supreme Court rulings emphasizing the requirement of proving conscious possession:

1. Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab (2002) – The Court held that mere proximity to the contraband is insufficient unless the accused had knowledge and control over it.
2. Mohammad Noor v. State of Rajasthan (2018) – It was reiterated that possession must be conscious, voluntary, and intentional for conviction under the NDPS Act.
3. Union of India v. Bal Mukund (2009) – The Court ruled that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof in criminal trials.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Strengthening Fair Trial Principles

By reaffirming that prosecution must first establish conscious possession, the judgment protects the rights of the accused from wrongful convictions based on mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence.

2. Clarifying the Scope of Section 54 NDPS Act

This decision ensures that Section 54’s presumption does not automatically apply unless the prosecution establishes a prima facie case of possession. This prevents misuse of the NDPS Act’s stringent provisions.

3. Impact on Law Enforcement Agencies

The ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies that proper investigation and evidence collection are essential before prosecuting individuals under the NDPS Act. Agencies must ensure they gather clear proof of conscious possession rather than relying solely on circumstantial evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh reinforces the fundamental principles of criminal law, ensuring that accused persons are not presumed guilty without proper proof of conscious possession. This judgment strengthens safeguards against arbitrary arrests and ensures that convictions under the NDPS Act are based on substantial evidence, not mere proximity to contraband.

By emphasizing the burden of proof on the prosecution, the Court has upheld fair trial rights, ensuring that stringent laws like the NDPS Act are applied judiciously and not misused.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-7I