USMAN SHAH vs State S — 2022 YLR 821 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.

USMAN SHAH VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Eight kilograms of charas was allegedly recovered from the motorcar driven by accused---Record showed that the seizing officer deposed that after recovery of contraband, he separated samples for Forensic Science Laboratory purpose and sealed in 8 parcels and remaining stuff in parcel No.9 with a monogram of "MK" which he categorically admitted that same was not pertained to his name and in fact the same stood for Sub-Inspector (S.I.), who was stated to be present with the complainant---Said recovery seemed to be doubtful, rather hinted at something having been planted by complainant, because said S.I. was never cited as a witness during the proceedings---Said witness, after few moments in his cross-examination, contradicted his own statement by deposing that SI was present in the police station at that very time---Monogram was lying with him in the official van---Seizing officer, pursuant to spy information, should have been required monogram with the letters "RK" in his possession to have strengthened and substantiated his version, but he disrupted the episode in a casual manner---Record transpired that he handed over the case property to the Moharrir, but said Moharrir was not produced before the court so as to support the version of the complainant and to depose about the safe custody of the case property---Prosecution even did not produce the Register No. 19 of the Police Station so as to prove that the case property was ever kept in Malkhana---Prosecution had wasted the best evidence available with it to establish the safe custody of recovered contraband---Vehicle, from which the alleged recovery was effected, was not produced before the court and was not exhibited during trial---Case property had not been produced by the police before the Trial Court without any justification, which showed that the police had malice against the accused regarding recovery of the contraband---Production of the case property before the court was the primary duty of the police in order to bring home the guilt of the accused---Non-production of the case property was fatal to the prosecution's case and the same had destroyed the very foundation of the case, which created a dent in the prosecution case, causing serious doubt with regard to the occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Head NotesCase Description

USMAN SHAH vs State S — 2022 YLR 821 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR