# Smt. Manju v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 867
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2421 of 2006
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-manju-v-state-of-u-p-52477
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 - Section
8C/21, 42, 50 - Challenged the conviction
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and
sentence
-
Appellant
was
apprehended with possession of heroin,
without any legal authorization - The
alleged inconsistencies regarding location
of arrest are not material - Appellant were
found in possession of heroin remains
unshaken - Minor discrepancies in witness
testimonies are not uncommon, do not
discredit
prosecution
case,
when
testimonies
are
consistent
and
corroborated by other evidence - The
failure to weigh seized substance at the
recovery site does raise concerns, it does
not undermine the fact that substance
was narcotic in nature - Confirmed by
forensic examination report - Trial court
rightly observed that quantity was small,
lapse in procedure does not negate the
presence
of
illegal
narcotics
with
appellant
-
Presence
of
independent
witnesses
would
have
strengthened
prosecution's case, their absence does not
invalidate the conviction - Testimony of
police officers, if found credible, can form
basis for conviction - Defense did not
provide
any
substantive
evidence
to
disprove
prosecution's
case
or
demonstrate that police fabricated the
case against her - Sentence and fine
awarded by trial court was appropriate -
Appeal lacks merit, dismissed. (Para 3,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31)

Appeal is dismissed. (E-13)

## Text

8 All. Smt. Manju Vs. State of U.P.
867
accused, who had filed Criminal Appeal
No.2130 of 1983, definitely was at the
place of incident. The Court has no doubt
with regard to the fact that the appellant
alongwith Shiv Singh was there. The
statements made in the FIR coupled with
the statements made by the PW-1 and PW2 definitely go to establish that the
appellant Ratan Shankar Dixit was there on
the spot alongwith Shiv Singh. The minor
contradictions with regard to how the first
informant escaped and whether the two
unknown accused persons were following
him makes no difference. Still further the
statement of PW-1 that he had immediately
upon the occurrence of the incident
approached the Chowki Jawahar Nagar and
had come back with the two police
personnel also appears to be a natural thing
to happen. Still further, for the Police to
have carried the injured to the hospital also
appears to be a very natural thing. The fact
that the other eye-witnesses Devendra
Sharma and Narendra Kumar Mishra
whose names find place in the FIR did not
appear would also not affect the case
inasmuch as they definitely were, as has
been stated by the PW-1, afraid to appear in
the witness-box and, therefore, the defence
cannot get any advantage of their nonappearance in the witness box. However,
what appeals to the Court is that nowhere
in the FIR or in the evidence led, even an
iota of mention was there about the fact
that when the two accused Shiv Singh and
Ratan Shankar Dixit along with the other
persons had reached the place of incident,
Ratan Shankar Dixit was sharing a
common intention with Shiv Singh to
murder Sanjev Tripathi. Ratan Shankar
Dixit was definitely not involved in the
case which was lodged by Shiv Singh @
Jhallar against the deceased Sanjeev
Tripathi and first informant Chandra
Mohan Singh. Ratan Shankar Dixit was
also not aware of any other criminal cases
which were there in between Shiv Singh
and Chandra Mohan Singh and the
deceased. In the evidence, there is a
mention of other criminal cases as well, but
Ratan Shankar Dixit was out of them all.
He has definitely not been assigned any
specific motive to do away with Sanjeev
Tripathi.

15. Under such circumstances, to
implicate Ratan Shankar Dixit along with
Shiv Singh by saying that he had a
common intention to murder Sanjeev
Tripathi would be erroneous. The role of
Ratan Shankar Dixit not having come
within the purview of having a common
intention with Shiv Singh, we consider it
appropriate to acquit him of the charges
under section 302 read with section 34 IPC.
The appeal, therefore, stands allowed.
Since the appellant is on bail, he need not
surrender. His sureties and bail bonds are,
therefore, discharged.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 867
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2421 of 2006

Smt. Manju ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Raj Narayan Rastogi

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 - Section
8C/21, 42, 50 - Challenged the conviction
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and
sentence
-
Appellant
was
apprehended with possession of heroin,
without any legal authorization - The
alleged inconsistencies regarding location
of arrest are not material - Appellant were
found in possession of heroin remains
unshaken - Minor discrepancies in witness
testimonies are not uncommon, do not
discredit
prosecution
case,
when
testimonies
are
consistent
and
corroborated by other evidence - The
failure to weigh seized substance at the
recovery site does raise concerns, it does
not undermine the fact that substance
was narcotic in nature - Confirmed by
forensic examination report - Trial court
rightly observed that quantity was small,
lapse in procedure does not negate the
presence
of
illegal
narcotics
with
appellant
-
Presence
of
independent
witnesses
would
have
strengthened
prosecution's case, their absence does not
invalidate the conviction - Testimony of
police officers, if found credible, can form
basis for conviction - Defense did not
provide
any
substantive
evidence
to
disprove
prosecution's
case
or
demonstrate that police fabricated the
case against her - Sentence and fine
awarded by trial court was appropriate -
Appeal lacks merit, dismissed. (Para 3,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31)

Appeal is dismissed. (E-13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. The case is taken up in the
revised call.

2. This Criminal Appeal Under
Section 374 (3) of the Criminal Procedure
Code has been filed against the judgment
and order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. First,
Lucknow in S.T. No. 246 A of 1999 arising
out Crime Number 362 of 1999: State vs.
Smt. Manju, by which the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced under
Section
8C/21
N.D.P.S.
Act
to
imprisonment for the period already
undergone and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-
with default stipulation.

3. The brief facts of the case are
that the appellant was apprehended near the
house of one Kanhaiya in Lucknow with
possession of 40 and 24 small packets
(pudiyas) of smack (heroin) respectively.
The prosecution alleged that the appellants
were found in possession of these illegal
substances without any legal authorization,
thus committing an offense under the
NDPS Act.The trial court, after considering
the evidence, including the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses (PWs), convicted
the appellants. The trial court noted that
although there were minor inconsistencies
in the testimonies regarding the exact
location of the arrest, the core facts
remained
consistent.
The
court
also
observed that the appellants failed to bring
forth any credible defense against the
charges.

4. Learned counsel for the
appellant submits the appellant's counsel
argued that the trial court erred in relying
on contradictory evidence presented by the
prosecution. The witnesses produced by the
prosecution
provided
inconsistent
statements, which the court failed to
adequately
scrutinize.
The
counsel
highlighted that such contradictions should
have created reasonable doubt regarding
the guilt of the appellant

5. Learned counsel for the
appellant
further
submits
that
the
appellant's counsel contended that the
prosecution's narrative was unnatural and
not credible. It was argued that the
sequence of events as presented by the
prosecution did not align with normal
human behavior or logic, thus casting
8 All. Smt. Manju Vs. State of U.P.
869
further doubt on the case. The prosecution's
failure to present a coherent and believable
account of the events weakens their case
against the appellant.

6. learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that The alleged incident
occurred near a highly populated area close
to government offices. Despite this, the
police failed to involve any gazetted
officers during the arrest and seizure, which
is a mandatory requirement under Section
42 of the NDPS Act. The counsel argued
that this non-compliance with procedural
law was a significant lapse that vitiates the
entire case.

7. learned counsel for the appellant
further
submits
that
the
immediate
reporting
of
the
incident
to
higher
authorities was not done, as mandated by
the
NDPS
Act.
The
delay
in
communication
and
the
method
of
reporting raise serious questions about the
integrity of the prosecution's case. The
counsel argued that the failure to adhere to
this statutory requirement further weakens
the prosecution's case.

8. learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the police did not
comply with the requirements of Section 50
of the NDPS Act, which mandates that the
accused be informed of their right to be
searched in the presence of a gazetted
officer or magistrate. The failure to inform
the appellant of this right and obtain their
consent renders the search and seizure
illegal, making the evidence inadmissible.

9. learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the arrest and seizure
took place in a densely populated area, yet
no independent witnesses were produced to
corroborate the police's version of events.
This absence of independent witnesses
raises serious doubts about the legitimacy
of the arrest and the subsequent recovery of
contraband.

10. learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that the police
officers did not take their own personal
search before conducting the search of the
appellant, which is a procedural safeguard
to ensure the integrity of the search
process.
The
failure
to
follow
this
procedure casts doubt on the legitimacy of
the recovery of the contraband.

11. learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that the police
failed to properly document the seizure and
recovery process, including obtaining the
necessary signatures and seals from the
officers
involved.
This
lack
of
documentation
raises
concerns
about
possible tampering with the evidence.

12. learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the prosecution failed to
produce key witnesses, such as the lady
officer who conducted the search of the
female appellant, in court. The nonproduction of these witnesses weakens the
prosecution's case and suggests that the
evidence against the appellant is not reliable.

13. learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the prosecution failed to
establish a clear chain of custody for the
contraband seized and did not provide proper
forensic evidence to conclusively prove that
the substance recovered was indeed a
narcotic drug. The lack of credible forensic
evidence creates reasonable doubt regarding
the appellant's guilt.

14. learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that the lower
870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court's conviction of the appellant was
based on speculation and not on solid
evidence. The prosecution's case was
riddled with inconsistencies and procedural
lapses, which should have led to the
appellant's acquittal rather than conviction.

15. learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that the lower
court misapplied the law in convicting the
appellant. The court failed to consider the
legal principles established in relevant case
law, such as the necessity of strict
compliance with the procedural safeguards
provided under the NDPS Act.

16. learned counsel for the
appellant
further
submits
that
the
prosecution failed to properly identify the
appellant as the person in possession of the
contraband.
There
was
no
proper
identification
parade
or
conclusive
evidence linking the appellant to the
alleged offense.

17. The Additional Government
Advocate
(AGA)
submits
that
the
prosecution's witnesses were credible and
their
testimonies
consistent
with
the
evidence presented. The contradictions
highlighted by the defense were minor and
did not affect the overall reliability of the
prosecution's case.

18. The Additional Government
Advocate (AGA) further submits that the
police followed the procedures laid down
in the NDPS Act. The failure to involve a
gazetted officer or magistrate during the
search was explained by the urgent nature
of the operation, and the higher officers
were informed as soon as possible.

19. The Additional Government
Advocate (AGA) further submits that the
recovery of contraband was lawful and
properly
documented.
The
substance
recovered was tested and confirmed to be a
narcotic, and the chain of custody was
maintained throughout the process.

20. The Additional Government
Advocate (AGA) further submits that the
absence of independent witnesses does not
automatically render the prosecution's case
weak. The credibility of the police officers
involved in the arrest and recovery should
be considered, and the circumstances of the
case did not permit the involvement of
independent witnesses.

21. The Additional Government
Advocate (AGA) further submits that the
forensic examination of the contraband was
conducted in accordance with established
procedures, and the report confirmed the
presence of a narcotic substance. The
defense's allegations of tampering are
unfounded.

22. The Additional Government
Advocate (AGA) further submits that the
NDPS Act imposes strict liability on those
found in possession of narcotics, and the
appellant was rightly convicted based on
the evidence of possession. The procedural
lapses, if any, do not outweigh the evidence
of possession.

23. The Additional Government
Advocate (AGA) further submits that the
lower court correctly applied the law and
convicted the appellant based on the
evidence
presented.
The
defense's
arguments are attempts to discredit the
prosecution's case without providing any
substantial evidence to the contrary.

24. The Additional Government
Advocate (AGA) further submits that the
8 All. Smt. Manju Vs. State of U.P.
871
importance of enforcing the NDPS Act
strictly to combat drug offenses. The
appellant's conviction serves as a deterrent
to others involved in such activities and
upholds the public interest in maintaining
law and order.

25. The Additional Government
Advocate (AGA) further submits that the
importance of upholding the lower court's
judgment to maintain the integrity of the
judicial process and ensure that those
involved in drug trafficking are duly
punished. The appellant's arguments should
not overshadow the substantial evidence of
guilt presented in the case.

26. In this case, the appellant
challenged the conviction and sentence
imposed by the trial court. After a thorough
review of the evidence, the submissions of
both the appellant's counsel and the State,
as well as an examination of the relevant
legal principles, the following conclusions
have been drawn:

 The
primary
issues
for
determination before this Court are:

 1. Whether the inconsistencies in
the witness testimonies regarding the arrest
location are material enough to vitiate the
conviction.

 2. Whether the failure to weigh
the seized substance at the recovery site
and the lack of independent witnesses
affects the validity of the conviction.

 3. Whether the sentence awarded
by the trial court is appropriate and just.

27. The Court finds that the
alleged
inconsistencies
regarding
the
location of arrest are not material. The core
aspect of the prosecution's case-that the
appellants were found in possession of
heroin-remains
unshaken.
Minor
discrepancies in witness testimonies are not
uncommon and do not necessarily discredit
the entire prosecution case, especially when
the testimonies are otherwise consistent and
corroborated by other evidence.

28. The failure to weigh the seized
substance at the recovery site does raise
concerns, but it does not undermine the fact
that the substance was indeed narcotic in
nature. The forensic examination report
confirmed that the substance recovered was
heroin. The trial court rightly observed that
the quantity was small, and the lapse in
procedure does not negate the presence of
illegal narcotics with the appellants.

29. The Court notes that while the
presence of independent witnesses would
have strengthened the prosecution's case,
their absence does not automatically
invalidate the conviction. The testimony of
the police officers, if found credible, can
form the basis for a conviction under the
NDPS Act. The defense did not provide
any substantive evidence to disprove the
prosecution's case or to demonstrate that
the police fabricated the case against them.

30. Considering the appellants'
socio-economic background and the fact
that the quantity of heroin was small, the
sentence awarded by the trial courtimprisonment for the period already
undergone and a fine of Rs. 500/- eachwas appropriate and just. The Court finds
no reason to interfere with the sentence
imposed by the trial court.

31 . After careful consideration of
the
evidence,
the
legal
arguments
presented, and the relevant case laws, this
872 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court finds that the appeal lacks merit. The
trial court's findings were based on a proper
appreciation of the evidence, and there
were no legal or factual errors that warrant
interference by this Court. The appeal is
liable to be dismissed.

32.

Accordingly,
the
Court
upholds the conviction and sentence passed
by the trial court and the appeal is
dismissed and the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 872
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2582 of 1983

Dodraj & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
P.N. Misra, Raghuvansh Misra, Rahul Misra

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
302/149, 147, 148 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 - Sections 7(A), 15(1)(d),
15(1)(g), 16 - Appeal against conviction -
Imprisonment for life - A dacoity had
taken place at house of accused Dodraj,
and deceased Ram Prakash, brother of
informant was named an accused and
later acquitted of charge - On 05.07.1982,
the deceased, informant (PW2), and Brij
Lal (PW3) were going to town to get
wheat grinded and to purchase other
articles by a bullock cart - At 07:30 am,
the appellants met them on way , armed
with lathis and kanta - They abused
deceased and attacked him - FIR was
lodged by PW2 against all the accused - In
the meantime, all accused have died,
except present appellant no. 2 - Held,
place of occurrence has been proved by
evidence of witnesses of fact - Site Plan is
proved
by
evidence
of
Investigating
Officer (PW7) - Appellant has not taken
any specific case in defence nor produce
any defence evidence - Accused failed to
prove contradiction in evidence of eye
witnesses PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6 -
PW1 proved injury report of witness PW3
- PW5, author of postmortem report
proved that injuries found on deceased
were sufficient to cause death - During
the
pendency
of
appeal,
a
plea
of
juvenality was taken by appellant, learned
Sessions Judge observed that at the time
of
incident
appellant
was
juvenile,
sentence awarded to appellant for proved
charges can't be sustained - No infirmity
in impugned order, directions accordingly.
(Para 6, 20, 26, 28, 29)

Appeal is disposed of. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Vinod Katara Vs St. of U.P. 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
757

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Instant Criminal Appeal has
been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C.
against the judgment and order dated
22.10.1983 in St. No. 438 of 1982 State Vs.
Dodraj and others, whereby the accused
appellants Shree Ram, Ram Bahadur were
convicted for charge under Section 302/149
IPC and Section 148 IPC, for which they
were sentenced to imprisonment for life
and one year rigorous imprisonment
respectively and the remaining five accused
persons Dodraj, Ram Swaroop, Neksoo,