ISLAM SHAH vs State S — 2023 MLD 1532 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.

ISLAM SHAH VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions and dishonest improvements in the statements of witnesses---Effect---Prosecution case was that 72 packets of hashish weighing 80 kilograms were recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle of the accused persons---Mashirnama of recovery did not speak about the number of parcels in which charas was sealed after separating the samples---However, the complainant during examination-in-chief produced three sealed parcels as Article B to D and further deposed that Article B contained 12 packets of charas, Article C contained 30 packets of charas and Article D contained 30 packets of Charas which in total became 72 packets---As per the evidence of complainant all the remaining property was sealed at the spot---Mashir during his examination-in-chief deposed that case property was sealed in two parcels and further deposed that the property available in the court was Article B which contained 36 packets of charas and Article C contained 37 packets of charas totalling 73 and there was no explanation as to how one (extra) packet of charas came about from the charas allegedly recovered and sealed at the spot---Further, both witnesses were in contradiction in respect of bags/parcels, as one of them deposed it as three and the other as two---Mashir during cross-examination also admitted that the complainant produced three sealed parcels of Narcotic Substance as Articles B, C and D---However, said witness admitted during his evidence that only Articles C and D were present before the court containing 73 packets of charas and as such, all said material contradictions cut the roots of the prosecution case and made it doubtful---Complainant in his examination-in-chief had deposed that he had issued notices under Ss. 22 & 23 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (the 'CNS Act, 1997') to the driver of the bus and he had not deposed a single word that any duty clerk was with them at the time of recovery---However, mashir had stated during cross-examination that the notices under Ss. 22 & 23 of CNS Act, 1997, were prepared by the duty clerk on the dictation of Seizing Officer---Said witness also during his examination-in-chief did not depose a single word as to whether the duty clerk was with them at the time of recovery or not which made the story of prosecution doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

ISLAM SHAH vs State S — 2023 MLD 1532 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD