PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1660 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Muhammad Anees vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 1660 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2024 PCrLJ 1660 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
PCRLJ
Parties
Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1660 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Muhammad Anees vs State S
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 9

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

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1660 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Muhammad Anees VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Conscious possession of the narcotics by the accused persons not proved---Prosecution case was that 800 grams Ice and 450 grams charas were recovered from the possession of the accused persons---According to the prosecution case, the alleged recovery of contraband was affected from the house---Witnesses in their depositions had admitted the fact that besides the accused persons, other persons were also residing in the said house, but there was nothing on record showing that the house from which recovery was effected was owned or in possession of the accused persons---No query was either made from the neighbors or from the revenue authority---Prosecution had failed to produce any single document showing that the accused persons were either owners or in possession of the said house---Thus, the prosecution had failed to prove the ownership or occupation of the accused persons in respect of the house from which the contraband was allegedly recovered---Furthermore, recovery of contraband from the house could not ipso facto be proof of guilt of the accused unless conscious possession and ownership of the accused were proved through confidence-inspiring evidence, which was lacking in this case---Mere presence of the accused persons on the spot would not be sufficient to connect them with the alleged narcotic substances, particularly when the prosecution had not even alleged a single word about conscious possession of the narcotics by the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English