ASLAM KHAN vs State S — 2021 PCrLJ 1018 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ASLAM KHAN VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Scope---Prosecution case was that 18 kgs of charas was recovered from the fuel tank of motorcar driven by accused---Prosecution examined seizing officer/complainant and marginal witness to prove its case---Said witnesses did not corroborate each other on material points rather contradicted each other---Complainant stated that he affixed 3/3 seals of monogram "AK" on the parcels of samples separated from recovered contraband but the said detail of number of seals had not been mentioned in the murasila---Likewise, as per complainant, there was no seal monogram in the abbreviation of his name in his department while marginal witness asserted in his cross-examination that the monogram of "AK" was the personal monogram of complainant, however, other Police Official deposed in his cross-examination that the said monogram of "AK" was of a Police Station---Complainant stated that the local police of that Police Station were not present with him on the spot at the time of sealing the parcels and affixation of monogram over the parcels, however, the marginal witness denied the version of complainant by stating in his cross-examination that police was around them but the whole proceedings was carried out by the Excise Department because they had conducted the whole proceedings, therefore, the local police of that Police Station had no concern at that very time---Complainant deposed that after sealing of case property on the spot, he along with other contingents of Excise Department went to that Police Station but marginal witness deposed that he did not remember that they visited that Police Station or not, however, one Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) came to the spot and spent some 20 minutes and thereafter went away---Said assertion was further contradicted by marginal witness that after arrival of Investigation Officer to the spot for spot inspection, preparation of site plan, recording of statements of witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C., he along with other contingents of Excise Department went to that Police Station, meaning thereby that none of the said witnesses were telling the truth---Had they been present on the spot at relevant time and the mode and manner of the occurrence was correct then they would have not contradicted each other on material points---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

ASLAM KHAN vs State S — 2021 PCrLJ 1018 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PCRLJ