Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2599 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case STATE through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakh

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

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2599 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case STATE through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa VS AQIL MUHAMMAD Ss. 9(c), 15-aa, & 24---Control of Narcotic Substances (Government analysts) Rules, 2001, R. 4(2)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-a)---Possession and recovery of 1025 grams of Charas and a .30 bore pistol---appeal against acquittal---appreciation evidence of---accused/ respondent was allegedly caught red-handed at a barricade which was laid by the Seizing Officer in wake of receiving spy information regarding trafficking of contraband by the accused---Validity---Seizing Officer being a star witness had admitted during the evidence that spy information was received at about 11:00 a.M. whereas time of occurrence was shown as 09:40 a.M. in the FIR, so when the occurrence had already taken place at 09:40 a.M., then how the information regarding involvement of the respondent/ accused in commission of the offence was received by the Seizing Officer at 11:00 a.M.---Stance of the Seizing Officer was also self-contradictory in the regard that, on the one hand, he was of the view that respondent/accused was trafficking contraband whereas, on the other hand, he claimed that he (accused) was busy in selling Charas while a customer was also present with him---Said stance of the Officer negated what he had mentioned in the FIR---Total quantity shown recovered was 1025 grams, while the marginal witness claimed the same as 150/240 grams in his cross-examination---Though the said contradiction was termed a mistake by the appellant, however, the same (contention) was baseless as the record was silent regarding any application having been made by the prosecution for the correction---Marginal witnesses, supposed to be present on the spot, were required to be aware of all the material aspects of the case, however, in the present case, the marginal witnesses even failed to disclose the exact quantity shown as recovered or even the place of recovery--- Seizing Officer and Investigating Officer were contradictory to each other regarding the time period which they spent together in connection with completion of investigation---Samples separated from the alleged recovered contraband, were sent to FSL after six(06) days whereas the R. 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government analysts) Rules, 2001, stipulated 72 hours from the recovery for completion of such exercise---Delay caused had not been plausibly explained, which could be considered as fatal to the prosecution case---Recovery of pistol was allegedly affected in a populous area but none from the general public present was cited as a witness---Though the Police Officials were as good witnesses as others, but when persons were available, then an attempt should have been made to ensure transparency---No arms Expert was brought on record to confirm the working conditions of the weapon---Prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the respondent / accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in circumstances---Prosecution had to prove its case and if any inconsistency, loophole or contradiction arose, then its benefits had to be extended to the accused---acquittal carried double presumption of innocence and the same could be reversed only when found to be blatantly perverse, illegal, arbitrary, capricious or speculative, shocking or resting upon impossibility---If there was a possibility of a contrary view, even then acquittal could not be set-aside---appeal against acquittal was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2599 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case STATE through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs AQIL MUHAMMAD Ss — 2023 YLR 2599 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR