In Brief
The appellant was convicted of drug possession (48 kg cannabis) based on his name appearing in a 2008 voters list as the house owner, despite a valid sale deed dated June 2009 transferring ownership to a co-accused. The co-accused was acquitted. The police never investigated the sale deed or village records, and the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession. The Supreme Court held that conviction cannot rest on presumed ownership without proving conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt. Citing defective investigation, gross misappreciation of evidence by both courts bordering on perversity, and violation of fair trial rights under Article 21, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.