RAHAMUDDIN BAREECH vs State S — 2022 PCrLJN 109 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

RAHAMUDDIN BAREECH VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that on spy information three accused persons were transporting charas in truck, complainant party (police) intercepted the said truck and arrested five persons and recovered 40 slabs of charas, weighing 20 kilograms from three persons---Two other persons, i.e. driver and the cleaner of the vehicle were also involved in the crime---Complainant alleged that the driver of the vehicle informed him that Rs. 30,000/- was being paid to him for each trip by the drug traffickers, however, said statement of the complainant did not find support from evidence on record---Complainant carried out the personal search of the three alleged narcotic sellers and a total sum of Rs. 2,500/- was recovered from their possession---According to the complainant (police official), nothing was recovered from the driver and cleaner of the vehicle, thus, there was nothing to prove that either Rs. 30,000/- were available with the three alleged narcotics sellers which were to be paid to the driver at the end of journey nor was there anything on record to show that the said amount was already paid to the driver and was available with him---Evidence on record did not support the statement of the complainant in any manner, whatsoever--- Credibility of the complainant, in circumstances, was tarnished, particularly when all the witnesses in the case were Police Officials---Recovery was allegedly made from the laps of the three accused persons---In case the driver and cleaner were hand in glove with the alleged narcotic sellers, who were paying the driver a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per trip, then prudence demanded that the narcotics should have been hidden somewhere in the vehicle, otherwise, if a person was travelling as a passenger only he would have a fraction of the said amount of Rs. 30,000/- for his journey---Statement of complainant showed that there were groceries in the vehicle, if it was assumed that the contraband was hidden in the groceries, it would not have been so easy for the complainant to recover the same---In that case, it would have been proved that the driver and cleaner were also party to such illegal trafficking of the drugs---Complainant in his deposition stated that he personally searched all the five accused, and although some meagre amount was recovered from the accused, nothing was recovered from the driver and cleaner---Said single fact created a lot of doubt in the prosecution case---Record transpired that there was a contradiction with regard to packing of the recovered charas in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses---Investigating officer during cross-examination admitted that he did not inspect the place of wardat---Investigating Officer did not try to get information from the Police Lines, which was responsible for posting Police Officials at the post/place of occurrence---Circumstances suggested that the Investigating Officer failed to perform his duty---Failure of Investigating Officer to interrogate the Police Officials posted on the check post on the day of occurrence showed and proved that he did not perform his duty honestly as a professional which created a serious dent in the prosecution case as all the witnesses in the present case, were Police Officials and also subordinate to the complainant---No hindrance was in the way of the Investigating Officer to trace and record statement of any Police Official posted at check post on the said date, but he failed to do so---Circumstances established that prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

RAHAMUDDIN BAREECH vs State S — 2022 PCrLJN 109 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported