Juman vs State art — 2025 MLD 314 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

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

Juman VS State art. 4---Recovery of liquor---appreciation of evidence---Safe custody and safe transmission of the property to the laboratory for its analysis not proved---Prosecution case was that two cartons containing 54 bottles of white wine were recovered from the possession of the accused---From a perusal of the record, it was seen that recovery of 54 pints (bottles) purported to be wine was shown to have been made from the possession of the petitioner on 24.03.2023, but only one pint out of 54 pints (bottles) was sent to chemical analyst through Police Constable---according to Investigating Officer, the case property was kept at Malkhana through WHC, but neither said Police Constable, who allegedly carried and delivered the parcel to the Chemical Examiner's laboratory, was examined by the prosecution nor WHC, under whose custody the property was kept, was examined and as such the prosecution had failed to establish the safe custody of the property and safe transmission of even one pint (bottle), shown to have been sent for its analysis to the laboratory---Hence no sanctity could be attached to the Chemical Examiner's Report, relating to one pint (bottle)---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 314 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case Juman VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Where single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, benefit thereof is to be extended to the accused not as a matter of grace or concession, but as matter of right. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 314 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case Juman VS State art. 4---Recovery of liquor---appreciation of evidence---No document presented to establish injury sustained by accused---Suppression of facts---Prosecution case was that two cartons containing 54 bottles of white wine were recovered from the possession of the accused---according to the contents of FIR the petitioner while running away had fallen down and sustained injury on his right knee and as a result whereof he was apprehended by the police party---Neither mashirnama of such injury was prepared by the Investigating Officer nor any document relating to his referral and/or examination by a Medical Officer was produced in evidence---all the three witnesses, who were examined by the prosecution, purposely suppressed such material aspect of the case and did not utter a single word about petitioner sustaining the injury on his right knee as disclosed in the FIR---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 314 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case Juman VS State art. 4---Recovery of liquor---appreciation of evidence---No representative sample taken from each bottle---Prosecution case was that two cartons containing 54 bottles of white wine were recovered from the possession of the accused---One pint (bottle) allegedly sent to the Chemical Examiner's laboratory for its analysis, by no stretch of imagination, could be the representative sample of the remaining 53 pints (bottles); for that all the 54 pints (bottles), shown recovered, and/or at least some substance from each pint (bottle) was required to be sealed separately and sent to the Chemical analyst so as to determine as to which substance all the 54 pints (bottles) contained---admittedly, opinion of Chemical Examiner was not obtained to prove the nature and nomenclature etc. of the substance contained in 53 remaining pints (bottles), and as such there was absolutely no evidence available on the record to suggest that the alleged remaining 53 pints (bottles) contained wine---Even remaining substance of the pint (bottle) after consumption of 100 ml fluid during the process of analysis, shown to have been kept in the sealed condition by the Chemical analyzer, as revealed from Chemical Examiner's Report, was not produced in Court---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 314 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case Juman VS State art. 4---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Recovery of liquor---appreciation of evidence---Non-association of private witnesses while conducting arrest and recovery proceedings---Prosecution case was that two cartons containing 54 bottles of white wine were recovered from the possession of the accused---Record showed that Investigating Officer had admitted in his cross-examination that place of occurrence was a busy road---Mashir had stated in his cross-examination that Investigating Officer interrogated the people of locality about the incident and they disclosed that the incident had taken place, but no independent person from the locality was associated with the alleged recovery proceedings and/or even during the course of inspection of the place of incident by the prosecution nor any effort was shown to have been made for doing so---This was violative of mandatory provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C, as the officials making searches, recovery and arrest, were required to associate private persons, more particularly, in cases in which the availability of private persons could not be disputed; this was important for the transparency in the recovery proceedings and to eliminate the chance of fabrication---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 314 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case Juman VS State art. 4---Recovery of liquor---appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Prosecution case was that two cartons containing 54 bottles of white wine were recovered from the possession of the accused---according to complainant "accused ran towards northern side prior to the arrest" but mashir had stated that "the accused on seeing police tried to escape towards western side"---Investigating Officer in cross-examination had stated that he did not interrogate any person at time of conducting site inspection but mashir had stated that Investigating Officer interrogated the people of the locality about the incident and they disclosed that the incident had taken place, whereas complainant did not state about Investigating Officer's interrogating the people of the locality about the incident---Investigating Officer had stated that on the same day, he left Police Station for inspecting the place of incident in a private vehicle along with complainant and mashirs of the case and conducted site inspection on the pointation of complainant of the case, but complainant did not state a single word about him accompanying Investigating Officer to the place of incident and about his showing the place of incident to the Investigating Officer---Mashir also did not state about the complainant accompanying the Investigating Officer to the place of incident for its inspection, but he stated that Investigating Officer conducted site inspection on their pointation---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Juman vs State art — 2025 MLD 314 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD