MIR MUHAMMAD vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 370 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.

MIR MUHAMMAD VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Discrepancies in the prosecution case---Effect---Twenty eight kilograms charas was recovered from the vehicle of the accused persons---Record showed that there were a number of contradictions between the evidence of prosecution witnesses which could not be easily brushed aside---Conduct of the police showed that investigation had been carried out in a casual and stereotype manner without making an effort to discover the actual facts/truth---Apart from above, there were also discrepancies and flaws in the evidence of prosecution witnesses---Complainant in his cross-examination had deposed that at the time of filing charge sheet report, property was not deposited in court malkhana---Size of charas slabs and colour of charas were not mentioned in the memo of arrest and recovery---Complainant admitted as correct that he did not produce roznamcha entry about handing over the case property to malkhana incharge---Complainant did not record the statement of malkhana incharge on same date---In memo of arrest and recovery, car colour, engine number, chasis number, model and manufacturing company name and word 'Cultus' were not written---Complainant did not disclose the ANF team's vehicle registration number, make and model and also the colour---Wife of one of the accused persons filed application against complainant regarding harassment and illegal demand to high ups of complainant---Complainant did not note the time of memo of arrest and recovery preparation---Said witness had not specifically disclosed the sealing of articles in the case---Total narcotic which allegedly was recovered from the accused persons was of 28 kilograms but only 560 grams as sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner---No mention was made of the time of depositing of case property in malkhana and when it was removed---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MIR MUHAMMAD vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 370 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ