Sajjad Khan vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 1666 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

Sajjad Khan VS State S. 9(2), Sr. No. 9---Possession of narcotic substance---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions and improvements made by witnesses in their statements---Prosecution case was that 06 kilograms crystal was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle driven by the accused---Complainant of the case mostly reiterated the contents of his fard-e-bayan, but however, to some extent he derailed from his earlier statement, thus, contradicted the case of prosecution---Said witness stated that 12 packets of recovered substances were in square shape, while he showed his ignorance with regard to weighing the same at the spot---Recovery witness, while contradicting the statement of complainant, deposed that the recovered contraband consisting upon 12 packets was in round shape, contrary to the same complainant deposed that the same was in square shape---Said witness further deposed that the Investigating Officer conducted the recovery proceedings outside the Levies room at the eastern side, whereas complainant deposed that the Investigating Officer completed the recovery proceedings inside the room of Levies Check Post---Recovery witness admitted that his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., and recovery memo. was silent with regard to weighing each packet separately---Said witness further admitted that the engine number of the produced Fielder in the Trial Court was C60837, while the same was mentioned in the recovery memo. as C611472---Recovery within admitted that chassis number of the vehicle in question was mentioned in the recovery memo. as chassis No.NZE-144-6003072, whereas when the same was produced before the Trial Court was having chassis bearing No.NZE-144-9003072---Meaning thereby the vehicle from which the alleged contraband was recovered had not been produced before the Trial Court---Investigating Officer of the case, who counted the steps taken by him during the course of investigation, had contradicted the statements of rest of the witnesses during his cross-examination and admitted that when he reached at the place of occurrence, the recovered contraband was lying on floor near the vehicle in question---While contrary to the same complainant stated that the substances were lying on the back seat of the vehicle in question till the arrival of the Investigating Officer---Thus, such admissions and contradictory statements of the witnesses created serious doubts in the case of prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Sajjad Khan vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 1666 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ