MUHAMMAD HANIF vs State S — 2023 YLR 2388 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

MUHAMMAD HANIF VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody of sample parcels---Contradictory statements---Prosecution case was that 27 kilograms charas was recovered from the vehicle driven by accused---Record showed that parcel containing the alleged recovered narcotics was produced before the Trial Court, which had different signatures of recovery witness compared to disclosure memo of the accused, recovery memo of the vehicle and recovery memo of alleged contraband material and search memo---Said fact was enough to create serious doubt about the safe custody of the parcel---Furthermore, the Mashir of recovery stated that all the parcels were prepared of white cloth, while he admitted that today no parcel of cloth was produced in the Court, and voluntarily stated that the Investigating Officer would produce the same---Notable that recovery witness in his examination in chief deposed that, on search of the vehicle, 07 packets of contraband material were recovered beneath the driving seat and 13 packets were recovered from the trunk of the car, underneath the spare wheel, which contradicted the contents of the FIR---Complainant, during his cross-examination stated that as per law the police of concerned police station should be taken into confidence prior to initiation of any proceedings---Admittedly, complainant did not get information about the police station in jurisdiction of which occurrence took place---Admittedly, the Investigating Officer did not reach at the place of occurrence---Mohrar stated that the sealed parcels were handed over to him by Investigating Officer which showed that the parcels were brought to ANF Police Station and thereafter handed over to the Mohrar, thus, creating serious doubt in the safe custody of the alleged recovered contraband material, whereas, in the trial, it was essential for the prosecution to establish its case through cogent and convincing evidence---Alleged contraband was seized from the possession of accused and was kept in safe custody in the malkhana at Police Station and thereafter the representative samples were safely transmitted to the Office of the Chemical Examiner for analysis, and it was evident that the needful was not done in its required manner---Sample/contraband so deposited in the Office of Narcotic Testing Laboratory could not be tagged with the seized substance allegedly recovered from possession of the accused in absence of evidence of its safe custody---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD HANIF vs State S — 2023 YLR 2388 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR