Unveiling Conscious Possession: The Case of Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: RAKESH KUMAR RAGHUVANSHI vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.

Citation: 2025 INSC 96 (Reportable)

Background of the Case

  • The case originated from an FIR lodged by ASI Musharraf Beg on December 30, 1996, at GRP Ujjain Police Station.
  • The FIR stated that on December 29, 1996, at 10:15 PM, ASI Beg received information about a person traveling on the Bhopal Rajkot Express (Train No. 1270) carrying three cartoon packets of opium poppy husk. The person was described as dark-complexioned and sitting on one of the packets near the bathroom in the last general coach.
  • This information was recorded in General Diary No. 2381.
  • ASI Beg sent Constable Braj Mohan to summon witnesses Rakesh and Prakash and informed them about the tip. A panchnama (record of proceedings) of the information was prepared and sent to the Superintendent of Police Railway, Indore, citing the urgency to prevent the alteration of articles. A search warrant could not be obtained.
  • On the night of December 29/30, 1996, ASI Beg, accompanied by Head Constables Bharat Pandey and Pradeep Singh, Constable Brij Mohan Singh, and witnesses, reached Platform No. 1 of Ujjain Railway Station. They were equipped with weighing scales, weights, seals, shellac, etc..
  • Upon the train's arrival, the raiding party, along with Train Guard Constables 405 Umashankar and 610 Rajendra Singh, searched coach no. 91105. They identified Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi based on the informer's description.

Apprehension and Seizure

  • Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi was asked to come out of the train with the three cartons he possessed. He attempted to leave but was stopped. He was then brought out with the three cartons.
  • Raghuvanshi was questioned, and he identified himself. He was informed of the suspicion of opium poppy husk in his possession. He consented to a search conducted by ASI Beg.
  • Raghuvanshi, police officers, and the witnesses underwent a body search, but nothing was found. The three cartons were then searched, and opium poppy husk was discovered. The witnesses smelled and tasted the substance to confirm it was poppy husk.
  • Panchnamas were prepared, documenting the possession, smelling, tasting, and measurement of the suspected articles. The cartoons containing poppy husk were weighed at the parcel office by Mithu Lal and M.K. Jaiswal and found to total 50 kg (17 kg + 17 kg + 16 kg) with a value of Rs 3500.
  • Samples were taken from each carton (A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2, C-1, and C-2), 250 grams each, to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. A seizure memo was prepared.
  • ASI Beg lodged FIR No. 713/96 based on the seizure and information. Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi was taken into custody. A criminal case was registered under section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Legal Proceedings

  • The investigation was carried out, and a charge sheet was filed in the Special Court. Raghuvanshi was charged under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
  • The Trial Court convicted Raghuvanshi and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.
  • The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore, dismissed Raghuvanshi's appeal, affirming the Trial Court's conviction.
  • Raghuvanshi then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Appellant's Arguments

  • The main argument was that Raghuvanshi was not in conscious possession of the poppy husk.
  • He claimed that he was forced to carry the cartons off the train by the police officers and had no control over them.
  • He argued the cartons could have belonged to any passenger on the crowded train, as the search was conducted at a public place.
  • Raghuvanshi claimed he was falsely implicated, was traveling with a valid ticket to visit a relative and was detained at Ujjain Railway Police Station.

State's Arguments

  • The State argued that there was sufficient, credible evidence that Raghuvanshi was in conscious possession of the contraband.
  • The police had specific information about Raghuvanshi's description, his location on the train, and the fact that he was carrying poppy husk.
  • The State contended that the lower courts had correctly found Raghuvanshi guilty and that the investigation was done correctly.

Rationale and Reasoning Given by the Judges

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that mere physical possession is not sufficient for conviction under the NDPS Act; it must be "conscious possession".
  • Conscious possession requires that the individual is aware of the nature and presence of the illegal substance, implying both physical control and mental awareness.
  • Once the prosecution proves possession, the burden shifts to the accused to account for the possession satisfactorily. If they fail, a presumption of guilt under Section 54 of the NDPS Act can be drawn.
  • Section 54 of the NDPS Act states that in trials under this Act, it may be presumed that the accused has committed an offense if they possess prohibited articles and cannot give a satisfactory explanation for such possession.
  • The court also cited Section 35 of the NDPS Act which says that the accused had the requisite mental state (intention, knowledge, motive), unless he proves otherwise.
  • The court found Raghuvanshi’s explanation unconvincing. They noted he was sitting on one of the cartons and the other two were nearby.
  • The Supreme Court referred to Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab (2002) 7 SCC 419, clarifying that possession required "custody or control over the goods".
  • In Avtar Singh, the court acquitted the accused due to the inability to establish beyond a reasonable doubt who possessed the contraband as there were multiple people in a vehicle.
  • The court distinguished the present case from Avtar Singh and found that unlike in Avtar Singh, there was a clear link between Raghuvanshi and the contraband. The court stated that the Avtar Singh judgment actually supported their view by clarifying that possession involves custody or control over the goods.
  • The Court also referenced cases such as Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2000) 2 SCC 513 and Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 7 SCC 465 to reiterate that once physical possession is proven, the burden shifts to the accused.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding no error in the decisions of the lower courts.
  • The Court emphasized the importance of conscious possession in NDPS Act cases, along with the burden of proof that shifts to the accused once possession is established.
  • The appeal was dismissed, and Raghuvanshi was directed to surrender within eight weeks to serve the rest of his sentence.

Excerpt

  • "Conscious possession refers to a scenario where an individual not only physically possesses a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance but is also aware of its presence and nature."
  • "Therefore, as envisaged by the provision itself, unless and until the contrary is proved in trials of cases involving offences coming within the purview of the NDPS Act, it may be presumed that the accused has committed an offence under the Act in respect of any articles prohibited to be possessed by him and for the possession of which, he failed to account satisfactorily."
  • "Section 35 of the NDPS Act deals with the presumption of culpable mental state. It states that in any prosecution under the NDPS Act, the court shall presume that the accused had the requisite mental state, including intention, knowledge, and motive, unless the accused can prove otherwise."
  • "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."

Points to Remember

  • Conscious possession is essential for conviction under the NDPS Act; mere physical possession is not enough.
  • Once the prosecution proves possession, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to provide a satisfactory explanation.
  • The courts are unlikely to accept excuses not backed by concrete evidence.
  • Specific prior information provided to law enforcement is a significant factor in securing a conviction under the NDPS Act.
  • Precedent is crucial in the Court's decision making process.
  • Section 54 and Section 35 of the NDPS Act shift the burden of proof on the accused once possession and culpable mental state is established by the prosecution respectively.
  • Culpable mental state includes intention, knowledge and motive.
  • The term panchnama refers to a written record of an action taken by the authorities.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more