BRIJ KISHOR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                     JAIL APPEAL No. - 342 of 2025

Brij Kishor Singh
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                        :    Gautam Baghel
Counsel for Respondent(s)                       :    A.G.A.

Court No. - 93
            HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul
Asthana, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
the State.

2. This Jail Appeal has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated
27.3.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.)/Special
Judge N.D.P.S. Act, Mahoba, in Special Case No.98 of 2011 (State vs. Brij
Kishore Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.903 of 2011, under Section
8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Kabrai, District Mahoba, whereby the
appellant has been has been convicted and sentenced as follows :-

     Under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act - Three Years Rigorous
     Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.30,000/- and in case of
     default in payment the appellant shall undergo three months
     additional simple imprisonment.

3. The prosecution case in nutshell :-

On May 9, 2011(In charge Inspector Santlal) alongwith S.I. Mahendra
Pratap Singh and other police personnel in a government Jeep departed from
the station at 20:05 hours. While conducting checks of two-wheeler and
four- wheeler coming from the Madhya Pradesh side on the road in front of
Atlas crusher, two persons sitting on a motorcycle were signaled to stop with
a torchlight. The person sitting behind got off carrying a white plastic sack
                                                         JAPL No. 342 of 2025
                                  2

that was half-full. Suddenly, the person driving the motorcycle turned the
vehicle and fled towards M.P. Upon suspicion, the person carrying the sack
was apprehended and two police personnel were signaled to chase the
motorcycle driver but he could not be found. When questioned about his
identity, the person identified himself as Brij Kishor Singh R/o Kanchanpur,
Dist. M.P. and stated that the sack contained Ganja which he was going to
sell and identified the person on motorcycle as Prem Singh. Upon searching
the white plastic sack, Ganja was found inside. Separate seal samples were
prepared. Total weight of the Ganja recovered was about 5.300 kg. On the
basis of the recovery memo provided by the complainant Incharge Inspector
Santlal, FIR was registered on May 10, 2011.

4. The prosecution in support of it's case examined a total of 4 witnesses
namely P.W.1- Rtd. S.I. Anant Kumar, P.W.2- Complainant Santlal Yadav,
P.W.3- Rtd. S.I. Dayashankar Pandey and P.W.4- Rtd. Head Constable
Jaswant Singh.

5. Documentary Evidences:


     i. Ext. k-1- First Information report
     ii. Ext. k-2- Carbon copy of the G.D
     iii. Ext. k-3- Recovery memo
     iv. Ext. k-4- Consent letter
     v. Ext. k-5- Arrest Memo
     vi. Ext. k-6- Site map( Naksha Nazri)
     vii. Ext. k-7- Chargesheet
     viii. Ext. k-8- FSL report, Agra, UP


     Material Evidence- Material Exhibit -1: Recovered Goods(Ganja)


P.W.-1. Rtd. S.I. Anant kumar stated in his examination that he examined
the recovery memo of the complainant and registered case crime no.
903/2011, approved the FIR written in his handwriting and the G.D entries
                                                             JAPL No. 342 of 2025
                                 3

being made by him.

P.W.-2 In-Charge Inspector Santlal stated on oath he along with other
police staff conducted the search and fully supported the prosecution version
and said that the motorcycle belonged to the mother of the accused namely
Koma Devi (Registration No. MP 16 MV 8187). He testified the recovery
memo, consent letter and arrest memo signatures being made by him.

P.W.-3 S.I Dayashankar Pandey supported the prosecution version and
stated that he was assigned the investigation and on May 10,2011 he
prepared the case diary and recorded the statements of the complainant and
accompanying witnesses, Ashok kumar Dubey and Jaswant Singh. He
inspected the crime scene and prepared the site map and based on the FSL
report he submitted chargesheet to the court.

P.W.-4 Rtd Head Constable Jaswant Singh supported the prosecution
story and stated that the incident occurred when he along with other officials
were conducting search on the road and stated that the driver fled due to
darkness.

6. However, the accused himself admitted in his statement under section 313
Cr.P.C. that he was traveling from Hamirpur on his motorcycle when the
police stopped his vehicle. He alleged that the police demanded money and,
upon his refusal, filed a false case against him.

7. The defense argued that no public witness was included despite the
incident occurring near a crusher with continuous traffic. However, P.W.4
stated in his examination-in-chief that because it was night, no member of
the public was available and that while stone loading happens day and night,
it is a matter of common sense that at that hour, traffic is low.

8. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties:-

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there were no public witnesses
in the instant case, even though the incident occurred near Kresar and there
                                                            JAPL No. 342 of 2025
                                4

was frequent vehicular traffic. A perusal of Exhibit ka-3 in the present case
clearly shows that the accused was arrested by police personnel during a
vehicle check on the road in front of Atlas Kresar at approximately 22:20.
However, the report does not mention any search for a public witness. In this
regard, PW-2, the complainant, stated that there is light in Kresar and that
gravel vehicles frequently ply on the road leading to the incident, but this
stops at night. P.W.-4 stated in his examination-in-chief that no members of
the public had come because it was night. In his cross-examination, he stated
that the patrolled road is constantly vehicular, and gravel loading continues
day and night. Thus, it is important to note that the police personnel stated
that the vehicle checking would be conducted on the road near the incident
site. It follows from common sense that there would be vehicular traffic
there. Furthermore, the incident site is shown to be near Kresar at night. This
leads to the conclusion that there must have been vehicular traffic at the
incident site. Witness P.W.-4 stated it has been admitted that vehicles
regularly travel on the guarded road. The Investigating Officer, P.W.-3,
stated in his cross-examination that saffron trees are planted near the crime
scene. Trucks move throughout the night. It is true that trucks loaded with
goods leave for Lucknow, Kanpur, and Allahabad at night. I have not
included the names of the public witnesses in the witness list, nor have I
recorded their statements in the case diary. Exhibit ka-3 and the witnesses'
statements reveal no evidence that they made any effort to obtain public
testimony. However, the mere fact that the prosecution witnesses are police
officers will not erode the entire prosecution narrative. Although, the
prosecution witnesses are police officers, there are no major contradictions
in their statements that would render their evidence unreliable, especially
when the accused himself has admitted his presence at the crime scene and
the fact that police officers conducted the checking. There is no
contradiction in the statement of the witness police personnel which requires
public witness to corroborate his evidence.


On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that it
                                                            JAPL No. 342 of 2025
                                 5

is clear from the perusal of the FIR that the same has been signed by the
police personnel present and a copy of the FIR has been given to the accused
and the accused has also signed the FIR. PW-2 Santlal Yadav has written it
down through Sub-Inspector M.P. Singh and proved it as Exhibit-Ka3. The
contraband i.e. 5 kg 300 grams of Ganja has been recovered from the
possession of the accused. This quantity is not such that it could have been
planted by a police officer. The FSL report is on exhibit, on perusal of which
it is clear that the seal was safe and Ganja was found on intangible analysis
as per the report. There is no such serious contradiction in the facts
mentioned in the case and in the context of that in the statements of the
police officers witnesses which makes the statements of the police officers
witnesses doubtful. Thus, it is proved from the prosecution witnesses,
recovery report and other documents that 5 kg 300 grams of ganja has been
recovered from the possession of accused Brij Kishore.

The prosecution has said that the recovery was made from a plastic bag. In
the present case, a perusal of the recovery report, Exhibit Ka-3, reveals that
the Ganja was said to have been recovered from a bag carried by the
accused. When the accused was told that he would have to undergo a search
before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, the accused asked the police to
conduct the search and signed the consent form, Paper No.7-ka, Exhibit Ka-
4, in this regard.

It is noteworthy that the prohibited substance, Ganja, was recovered from a
plastic bag carried by the accused. Therefore, compliance with Section 50 of
the NDPS Act is not necessary.


9. Analysis

After carefully examining the legal provisions, the evidence available on
record, this Court is of the view that there is no contradiction in the evidence
presented by the prosecution. The witnesses proved the incident and the
recovery. Thus, based on the above findings, the Court concludes that the
                                                                                                JAPL No. 342 of 2025
                                                                    6

                                    charges leveled by the prosecution against the accused Brij Kishore under
                                    Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
                                    have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence presented.
                                    Therefore, in my opinion, the accused Brij Kishore has been rightly
                                    convicted by the learned trial Court.

                                    10. Conclusion :-

                                    Considering the overall circumstances and submission of learned counsel for
                                    the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and after going through the
                                    evidence and lower court record, I am unable to persuade myself in taking a
                                    different opinion from that of learned trial court. The learned trial court was
                                    fully justified in convicting the accused-respondent.

                                    Learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any illegality, infirmity
                                    or perversity in the judgment of the learned trial court. Accordingly, the
                                    same is hereby upheld.

                                    The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
                                    February 3, 2026
                                    Dev
                                                                                (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
DEV PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad