Conviction for possession of contraband, wrongly based on mere presumption of ownership of house

Presumption of culpability against accused to explain possession of contraband satisfactorily, are rebuttable. It does not dispense with obligation of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The presumptive provision with reverse burden of proof, does not sanction conviction on basis of preponderance of probability.

Police had dilemma with regard to ownership and possession of the house from where contraband was seized, due to a flawed, defective and incomplete investigation. In this situation Police found it convenient to implicate the accused considering him to be owner of the House on basis of voters list of 2008, thereby rejecting defence that accused had sold house to co-accused, currently residing therein. No person in possession of illegal contraband, would normally identify his own erstwhile house and be a witness to breaking of lock and recovery, thus implicating himself.

Sale agreement and other Panchayat records promptly produced by house owner to prove sale of house to co-accused long back in year 2009, were never investigated for its genuineness by police and no Panchayat records were verified. Police investigation was very extremely casual, perfunctory and shoddy in nature resulting in denial of right to a fair investigation. Poor investigation by the police, resulted in the accused suffering incarceration for offence he had never committed. Accused was therefore held entitled to acquittal.