MUHAMMAD ARIF vs State S — 2023 YLR 2369 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.

MUHAMMAD ARIF VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody of narcotics---Non-production of incharge malkhana---Contradictory statements--- Effect---Accused was found in possession of ten packet of opium weighing 9800 grams and four packets of charas weighing 5000 grams---Whole case property was sealed on the spot and brought back to the police station where, as per the deposition of complainant police official, he kept the case property in safe custody---Complainant then admitted that such entries for recovered case properties were kept in the relevant Register and that he recorded the same, but did not produce it before the Court---Contradicting the complainant, however, Investigating Officer deposed that he received case property for investigation---Investigating Officer also deposed that he did not make an entry of case property in the Register nor did he confirm from the Head Mohrar regarding keeping the entry in Register---Investigating Officer too admitted to not producing the entry from the Register---As per his deposition, Investigating Officer received the case property whereas the complainant of the case deposed that he had kept the same in safe custody---Both the said prosecution witnesses had contradicted each other on a crucial aspect of the case and due to their failure by not producing the entry from the Register nor examining the in-charge of said malkhana/Head Muharar, it could not be ascertained whether case property was even kept safe during the intervening period in which it was not sent to the Chemical Examiner---Safe custody from recovery to dispatch to the Chemical Examiner could not be proven especially when the same was delayed by two whole days without the possibility of tampering---In failing to disprove the possibility of tampering and establishing safe custody, recovery of the narcotics could not be used against the accused despite there being a positive Chemical Examiner's report---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2369 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARIF VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there was a single infirmity in the prosecution case creating sufficient doubt, the benefit of the same will go to the accused. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2369 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARIF VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was found in possession of ten packet of opium weighing 9800 grams and four packets of charas weighing 5000 grams---According to the prosecution, accused had a black bag in his hand, however the said bag found no further description either in the memo of arrest and recovery, or in the FIR---Further description of the same however came forth in the deposition of complainant who, while being cross-examined, admitted that the bag was in fact of navy blue colour and had "Old is Gold" inscribed on it---As per the prosecution case, the bag contained 10 packets of opium which were weighed and found to be 9.8 kilograms while 4 packets of charas were also found within the bag which were weighed and found to be 5 kilograms---Said packets did not find any description as to the nature or content of the outer coverage of the same; whether they were wrapped in plastic, paper or cloth---Such omissions struck at the core of the prosecution case as the same would have otherwise helped establish that the case property available in Court was in fact the same---Departure entry through which the complainant had left along with his subordinates to patrol also found no mention in the FIR, in the memo of arrest and recovery, in the memo of site inspection and not even in the 161, Cr.P.C. statement of the witness---Complainant and recovery witness had signed over the sealed parcels, however the same signatures were missing as was admitted by recovery witness during his deposition---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD ARIF vs State S — 2023 YLR 2369 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR