Mohammad Juman Khaskheli alias JUMO vs State S — 2024 YLR 1818 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.

Mohammad Juman Khaskheli alias JUMO VS State S. 9(b)---Possession of narcotic---Appreciation of evidence---Safe transmission of samples to chemical examiner not established---Contradictions and inconsistency in the case of prosecution---Prosecution case was that 700 grams charas was recovered from the possession of the accused---Notably, the Investigating Officer failed to provide any information as to who kept the parcel in malkhana, even though an attested photocopy of entry No. 137 of Register No. 19 of malkhana was produced---Additionally, neither the statement of the incharge of malkhana was recorded nor he was produced as a witness to establish the safe custody of the parcel from 16.11.2021 to 17.11.2021---Moreover, there were two conflicting claims about the delivery of the sealed parcel to the Chemical Examiner, one from mashir and another from Police Constable, who stated that the case property in sealed condition along with a letter and Road Certificate were delivered to him by the Investigating Officer, which he then deposited with the Chemical Examiner---Such contradictions raised significant doubts about the proper delivery of the parcel to the Chemical Examiner---Failure of Investigating Officer to establish the safe custody of the parcel, lead to an apparent break in the chain of custody and safe transmission of the parcel in the case---In such situations the benefit should be given to the accused---Further upon close re-examination of the Investigating Officer's evidence, it was observed that during his cross-examination, he failed to recall the name of the person through whom he dispatched the parcel to the Chemical Examiner---Additionally, the Investigating Officer also failed to recognize Road Certificate No. 43179 initially and stated that he dispatched the parcel under Road Certificate bearing the number 121379---However, when Road Certificate was shown to him, he then admitted that it bore Road Certificate No. 43179 and not 121379---Such inconsistency raised doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the evidence provided by the Investigating Officer---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Mohammad Juman Khaskheli alias JUMO vs State S — 2024 YLR 1818 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR