Muhammad Afzal vs State S — 2024 YLR 1797 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 Afzal VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of official witnesses---Prosecution case was that 1250 grams charas was recovered from the possession of the accused---Complainant stated that after arrest and recovery, they brought the accused and the case property to Police Station, where he lodged the FIR at 10.30 pm whereas, mashir/Police Constable, during cross-examination, mentioned that they reached Police Post at 10.30 pm---Such inconsistency raised doubts about the availability of the complainant at both places viz. Police Post and Police Station at the same time, i.e., 10.30 pm---Furthermore, the fact that the police party had left the police post, as mentioned in entry No. 20, at 09.00 pm, for patrolling had not been adequately explained by the complainant in relation to the entry of their departure from Police Station or Police Post---During their cross-examination, both the complainant and mashir testified that no private person was present at the time of the alleged recovery---However, it had been admitted by the Investigating Officer that residences and shops were situated near the place of recovery, particularly the shops and houses of a community---Complainant, during his cross-examination, expressed unawareness about the availability of shops at the place of the incident---In light of these discrepancies and uncertainties, the prosecution's case with regard to the recovery and handling of the alleged charas lacked credibility and consistency---Both the complainant and mashir had also contradicted each other regarding the manner in which the memo of arrest and recovery was prepared---According to mashir, the complainant prepared the mashirnama by keeping it on a clipboard, while the complainant stated that he prepared it by keeping it on the bonnet of a mobile vehicle and not on a clipboard---Such loopholes and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, especially their lack of knowledge about certain realities, raised doubts about the credibility of their testimonies---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Afzal vs State S — 2024 YLR 1797 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR