SULEMAN vs State S — 2022 MLD 1612 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.

SULEMAN VS State S.9(d)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Scope---Prosecution case was that 7028 grams of charas was recovered from the motorcar driven by the accused, while co-accused was sitting on front seat of the said motorcar---In the present case, the complainant and recovery witness appeared but both the said witnesses did not support each other on material points---According to complainant, he was Incharge of the Check Post at relevant time; while recovery witness did not know that who was the Incharge of the checking staff at that time---Complainant asserted that he opened the doors of the motorcar through screw driver brought by one Constable from the official vehicle; whereas recovery witness denied his version by stating that at the time of checking the motorcar, the screw driver was in the hand of complainant---Complainant stated that after recovery of contraband, the doors of the motorcar were refitted by a constable in presence of marginal witnesses; while recovery witness asserted that it was not refitted in his presence---According to complainant, he weighed the contraband separately but as per recovery witness, it was first weighed separately and thereafter, the entire packets of narcotic were weighed---As per assertion of complainant, the accused along with contraband and other documents were taken by Sub-Inspector and two Constables in the motorcar of accused (case property) to the Police Station; which deposition was belied by recovery witness by stating that official vehicle was taken along with motorcar of accused to the Police Station---Likewise, complainant stated that they affixed lights in the trees near the check post and also kept a torch; in the light of which they along with Investigating Officer conducted the proceedings on the spot but as per recovery witness, it was done in the light installed on the check post---However, Investigating Officer denied the assertions of both those witnesses by stating that in the lights of vehicles, the spot proceedings were conducted---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt to sustain conviction---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court. Head NotesCase Description

SULEMAN vs State S — 2022 MLD 1612 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 MLD