Dorilal vs. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence

Facts

These appeals arise from the same incident and Special NDPS Case No. 33 of 2022. The appellants, Dorilal, Chandraveer @ Pintu/Chintu, Amit Kumar @ Jeetu, Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupi, and Tummala Veketshwar Rao, were convicted and sentenced under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) received secret information about the illegal transportation of ganja via a truck and a piloting XUV vehicle. The DRI intercepted the truck, which contained ganja concealed under puffed rice sacs. The occupants of the truck, Bandari Chandrashekhar and Bhupendra Singh, allegedly disclosed that the XUV vehicle, carrying Gajesh, Dorilal, Chandraveer @ Pintu, and Amit @ Jeetu, had taken the ganja from Arakku, Vishakhapatnam. The XUV vehicle evaded interception. The appellants challenge their convictions and sentences.

Held

The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted significant procedural irregularities and a lack of independent corroboration in the prosecution's case. Specifically, the Court found that the Panchnama did not record any statements from the accused, and the evidence of PW-2 did not provide the necessary independent corroboration. The Court also relied on admissions made by PW-4, the Deputy Director of DRI, who conceded that the secret information lacked details of the piloting vehicle, that a vehicle following behind could not effectively pilot the truck, and that no XUV vehicle was intercepted at the scene. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution failed to adequately establish the appellants' presence and movements in Visakhapatnam. The Court concluded that these deficiencies materially benefited the appellants and cast serious doubt on the fairness and reliability of the prosecution's case. Consequently, the convictions and sentences of the appellants were set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the alleged procedural irregularities and lack of independent corroboration in the investigation and seizure process, particularly concerning the alleged disclosures made by the accused and the recovery from the XUV vehicle? (Section 8C, 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27A, 29 of NDPS Act). The appellants argue that the evidence presented by the prosecution is weak, lacks transparency, and suffers from contradictions. They contend that the Panchnama does not record any statements from the accused, and the evidence of PW-2 does not provide independent corroboration. They also highlight admissions from PW-4 that the secret information did not contain details of the piloting vehicle, that a vehicle behind cannot pilot a vehicle in front, and that no XUV vehicle was intercepted at the spot. The appellants further argue that the prosecution failed to establish their presence and movement at Visakhapatnam. The respondent (DRI) contends that the evidence on record, including the secret information, the interception of the truck, the recovery of contraband, and the alleged disclosures, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants.