NIAZ AHMAD vs State S — 2021 PCrLJ 1461 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.

NIAZ AHMAD VS State S. 9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Possession of Narcotics--- Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Confessional statement of accused---Scope---Prosecution case was that 74 kilograms of Charas Garda was recovered from the secret cavities of vehicle driven by co-accused in the company of accused---Record showed that the accused allegedly made an application on 17.01.2017 for recording his statement and his alleged confessional statement was recorded on 20.01.2017---Application dated 17.01.2017 available on record of the case nowhere suggested that the accused intended to record his confessional statement, rather he showed his desire to record his statement---Alleged confessional statement could not be used for his conviction---Accused subsequently retracted from his confessional statement and alleged the same to be illegal, recorded without observing codal formalities i.e. without warning or opportunity for pondering over his confession---In order to properly assess intrinsic worth of the said confessional statement that whether the same was voluntarily, true and recorded after observance of due and codal formalities, High Court had thoroughly perused the same---In reply to Question No.7" Do you want to engage the counsel?", the accused replied that;?Might be but not at present as I had no contact with my family." which clearly suggested that no proper opportunity was provided to the accused to contact his family members or to engage his counsel, thus, the alleged confessional statement was not sufficientfor maintaining the conviction of the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

NIAZ AHMAD vs State S — 2021 PCrLJ 1461 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PCRLJ