Muhammad Yousuf vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 1558 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 Yousuf VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of witnesses---Prosecution case was that 25-kilogram charas was recovered from the possession of the accused persons---Prosecution case was that the raiding party after information had stopped the accused coming on motorcycle in front of the office of Executive Engineer near Toll Plaza, and the complainant and mashir also deposed during their examination-in-chief the same which confirmed that they stopped their vehicles in front of a Government building---However, on an application under S.539-B Cr.P.C filed by defence, Nazir of the Trial Court was appointed as commissioner for inspection of the place of recovery, who had submitted his report mentioning that there was no office building at the pointed place where the vehicles were stopped and the inspection was carried out on the pointation and in presence of the complainant---Recovery witness during cross-examination stated that there was no office where they were standing but on their back side there were showroom-type offices beside a hotel---Court witness during his cross-examination stated that the complainant pointed out the place and informed that vehicles were parked at the time of occurrence at that place and in front of it there was no building of Executive Engineer---Such aspect of the case made the recovery alleged by the prosecution doubtful---Complainant during cross-examination stated that Head Mohrar had reduced into writing the entry and the FIR while recovery witness stated that the same was registered by the complainant himself---Recovery witness during cross-examination stated that there was no other road except the main National Highway and there was no link road---However, Court witness during his cross-examination contradicted him by stating that there was a service road adjacent to Toll Plaza---Complainant and recovery witness negated the suggestion that after crossing Toll Plaza there was a Rangers check post, however, Court witness admitted that there was a Rangers picket---Witnesses during cross-examination mostly used the words that they did not remember on certain questions and suggestions put to them by the defence---Discrepancies in the testimonies of the two witnesses; the purported lack of knowledge about certain things which they ought to have remembered and not knowing those things which they should have known as in the present case was fatal to the case of the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Yousuf vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 1558 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ