The Supreme Court has acquitted a Russian national previously convicted for smuggling 1.900 kg of charas from Nepal into India, setting aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to significant procedural lapses and glaring inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the search and seizure.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a search operation conducted on the Indo-Nepal Border. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Doniyar Vildanov, was accosted by a Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) team 15 meters inside Indian territory from Border Pillar No. 517/2. It was alleged that upon searching the appellant, 1.900 kg of charas was recovered from his bag.
Following the initial detection by the SSB, a police team engaged in combing operations was summoned to the spot. The appellant was subsequently charged, and the Sessions Court convicted him for offences punishable under Sections 8, 20, and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). He was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with a default sentence of six months. The High Court affirmed this conviction and sentence on appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the appellant, Sh. R.P. Luthra, contended that the contraband was planted and never recovered from the appellant’s person or possession. The defense argued that the appellant was actually taken into custody the previous day at the “no man’s land.” It was alleged that upon his refusal to bribe the police, a false case was registered, and his pet dog, which was accompanying him, was taken away by the police.
The defense highlighted a critical discrepancy in the documentary evidence: the appellant’s original passport indicated he had left Nepal on November 5, 2016, whereas his arrest was recorded at 7:00 A.M. on November 6, 2016. The counsel argued that the arrest was recorded late to circumvent the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the production of an accused before a Magistrate within 24 hours.
The Learned Government Counsel supported the prosecution’s case, arguing that after exiting Nepal, the accused remained in the “no man’s land” until he entered Indian territory the next morning, where he was immediately arrested. The State contended that planting contraband worth approximately Rs. 23 lakhs was improbable and that any discrepancies in evidence were minor.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court scrutinized the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, specifically PW1 to PW3 (SSB and Police personnel). The Court noted that the SSB team led by PW3 detected the contraband in the bag before summoning PW1 (Police Sub-Inspector). The evidence suggested that the search was conducted and the contraband detected before the accused was informed of his rights or signed any consent letter regarding the search.
The Court observed: “The sequence of events as spoken of by PW1 to PW3 clearly indicate that immediately on interception the bag of the accused was searched and the contraband detected. The consent letter was signed after the detection was made and then the confession was alleged to have been made.”
The Bench rejected the prosecution’s attempt to separate the detection from the seizure, stating, “Obviously, the mandatory stipulation for search and seizure as per the NDPS Act was not carried out in its true letter and spirit.”
Regarding the timeline, the Court found the discrepancy between the passport exit stamp (05.11.2016) and the recorded arrest (06.11.2016) significant. The Court noted that the site plan indicated interception inside Indian territory, yet there was no entry endorsement on the passport. The Bench remarked, “The fact of his exit from Nepal on 05.11.2016 and the absence of an endorsement of his entry into Indian territory raises yet another reasonable doubt, insofar as his interception at 7 A.M. on 06.11.2016.”
The Court also found merit in the defense’s submission regarding the appellant’s pet dog. PW1 admitted the presence of the dog, yet it was not mentioned in the Mahazar (seizure memo). The Court noted this omission “probablises the story of the accused… that the police had an eye on his dog, which he refused to part with, thus leading to the false accusation.”
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the recovery Mahazar failed to even indicate the bag in which the contraband was allegedly found.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the inconsistencies in the evidence were not minor but were “glaring enough to raise a reasonable doubt as to the complicity of the accused in the alleged smuggling.”
Concluding that the foundation of the case had collapsed due to procedural violations, the Bench held: “We are unable to find the search and seizure to be in accordance with the mandatory prescriptions and hence the foundation of the case charged against the appellant falls apart.”
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, and acquitted the appellant. The Court directed that the accused be released forthwith and his original passport be returned.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Doniyar Vildanov v. The State of U.P.
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9460 of 2025]
- Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
