Jameel Ahmed vs State S — 2025 YLR 141 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.

Jameel Ahmed VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statement of witnesses---Accused was charged for having possession of 1178 gram charas---Prosecution in order to establish the charge had produced the evidence of five witnesses, who had contradicted each other on material counts---Head Moharar, who was the Incharge Malkhana, received the parcels and deposited the same in Makhena and made entries thereof in Register No.19---Said witness not only made dishonest improvements to his earlier statement, but also contradicted the statements of rest of the witnesses---During the course of cross-examination said witness showed his ignorance with regard to obtaining the signatures of the Investigation Officer in Register No.19, while the perusal of Register No.19 reflected that he did not obtain the signatures of Investigating Officer---Such fact was also admitted by the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination that his signatures were not available in Register No.19---Recovery witness/Constable of contraband, made dishonest improvements to his earlier statement as well as contradicted his own statement during the course of cross-examination---Said witness deposed that the parcels were prepared at 02:30 p.m. while contrary to the same he further stated that recovery memo. was prepared at 02:20 p.m. inside the vehicle---Said witness admitted in his cross-examination that after preparation of Murasila the same was sent to the Police Station through driver at 03:50 p.m. whereas the FIR had been lodged at 03:15 p.m. meaning thereby the FIR had already been lodged prior to the Murasila---Said witness deposed that the Investigation Officer arrived at the place of occurrence at 03:40 hours accompanying two Police personnel but he did not mention the name of driver, while in rebuttal of the same deposition the other witness deposed that the Investigating Officer came to the place of occurrence in the same vehicle through which the driver transmitted the Murasila to the Police Station, who accompanied the gunmen---Thus such glaring contradictions and dishonest improvements created serious dents in the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused through consistent and confidence inspiring evidence---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Jameel Ahmed vs State S — 2025 YLR 141 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR