ZAKI ULLAH vs State S — 2023 YLRN 36 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.

ZAKI ULLAH VS State S.9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Scope---Prosecution case was that 55 packets of charas pukhta weighing 55000 grams concealed in secret cavities made beneath the floor of the vehicle of accused were recovered---Perusal of the available record would show that the Seizing Officer/ Complainant had shown recovered huge quantity of contraband i.e. 55 KGs charas (pukhta) from the vehicle being driven by the accused at the relevant time---Pertinent aspect of the case which had blurred the prosecution case was the fact that recovery witness/ Constable who while appearing before the Court admitted in his cross-examination that the secret cavity was opened through mechanic, who was called by the S.H.O. whereas the complainant stated that he himself had opened the secret cavity with the help of tools on the spot---Said contradiction in the statements of the complainant and the marginal witness to the recovery memo. was not so slight in nature to be ignored as both the witnesses had advanced a stance which was quite different from each other on very important aspect of the case---Cavity was opened by a mechanic then in that situation the mechanic was to be examined being a material witness who had not been produced---In addition to that,another pronounced aspect of the case was that the Seizing Officer in his cross-examination had stated that till arrival of the Investigating Officer to the spot he was present in the radius of 10 paces from the spot and when the Investigation Officer reached there he proceeded to the spot whereas the Investigation Officer in his cross-examination had stated that when he reached the spot the complainant and witnesses were not present there and he called them---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not proved its case through cogent and reliable evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed. S.9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Prosecution case was that 55 packets of charas pukhta weighing 55000 grams concealed in secret cavities made beneath the floor of the vehicle of accused were recovered---No material was on case file to show that who took the accused to the police station from the spot---Though the complainant had stated that before arrival of the Investigation Officer he had sent murasila and the accused to the police station through a Constable but when Duty Officer/ ASI appeared before the Court stated that he had only received the murasila sent by the complainant through a Constable and incorporated its contents into FIR---Other witness appeared before the Court and stated that complainant brought the case property and the vehicle to the police station and he made relevant entries in the prescribed register but that witness was silent about bringing of the accused in the police station by the Constable---Had the accused been taken to the police station by the complainant through a Constable then it could have been so reflected from the statements of the referred witnesses which was not the case in hand which situation rather supported the defense plea whereby the accused had alleged that he was arrested from Ocha Wala stop at the instigation and connivance of co-accused---Besides, recovery witness in his cross-examination had stated that the secret cavities were opened on the pointation of informer, who was present on the spot---When the secret cavities were pointed out to the complainant by the informer who was present on the spot then in that eventuality his statement was to be recorded as by then his role was changed from that of his being an informer into a witness---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not proved its case through cogent and reliable evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed.

ZAKI ULLAH vs State S — 2023 YLRN 36 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported