Lal Bux vs State arts — 2025 YLR 1869 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.

Lal Bux VS State arts. 3 & 4---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Possession of wine---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-associating private witnesses at the time of arrest and recovery---Effect---accused were charged for having 72 bottles of wine---Record showed that at the time of alleged recovery of wine, no independent witness from the public was joined to act as witness of the alleged recovery nor any reason for non-joining of such independent witness from the place of incident had been given---Investigation Officer during his cross-examination had admitted that place of incident was busy road---Non-joining of independent witness, when place of incident was admitted to be a busy place, in absence of any reason, made the recovery doubtful being in violation of the S.103, Cr.P.C---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1869 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case Lal Bux VS State arts. 3 & 4---Possession of wine---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody and safe transmission of recovered substance to laboratory for analysis not proved---accused were charged for having 72 bottles of wine---Prosecution had substantially failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the case property to the Office of Chemical Examiner---In that regard, fatal blow had been caused to the case of prosecution by non-production of WHC to whom case property was handed over vide entry No.99 of register 19 by the Investigation Officer---In addition to that, non-production of Police Constable, at the trial, who was handed over the case property, for onward transmission to the Office of Chemical Examiner on 23.10.2023 also created further dents to the case of prosecution, which could not complete chain of evidence of safe custody and safe transmission of case property for chemical analysis rendering the report of Chemical Examiner doubtful---any break in the chain of safe custody and safe delivery of the samples to the Office of Chemical Examiner would create a serious dent to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1869 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case Lal Bux VS State arts. 3 & 4---Possession of wine---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Infirmities in the statements of witnesses---accused were charged for having 72 bottles of wine---Contents of FIR revealed that three persons, who were riding on Qingqi Rickshaw allegedly transporting three cartons of wine of different quality, each containing 24 bottles, were arrested and nominated by the police party---allegedly, driver of rickshaw, on signal by police to stop, tried to reverse the rickshaw, but nowhere it had been shown that the said driver had either been nominated in the FIR or had been arrested---Complainant, during cross-examination stated, that he had not mentioned in the FIR about the person who was riding the rickshaw---Said fact was also confirmed by eye-witness during his cross-examination---Moreover, there was nothing on record to reveal the ownership of the Qingqi Rickshaw, wherefrom the alleged case property of three cartons of wine were recovered---Thus, factum of driver of the rickshaw and its ownership, suppressed by the complainant and eye-witness of the occurrence, appeared to be intentional and deliberate, casting a serious doubt on the veracity of their statements---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1869 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case Lal Bux VS State arts. 3 & 4---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), art. 129(g)---Possession of wine---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Withholding material witness---Effect---accused were charged for having 72 bottles of wine---Perusal of report under S.173, Cr.P.C., revealed that the prosecution had cited total of number of eight witnesses out of whom only three witnesses had been produced at the trial---Two witnesses being material witnesses of safe custody and transmission of the case property were not produced without any lawful explanation---Similarly, a Police Constable, Duty Police Constable and Inspector/SHO, who were also cited as witnesses in the police report under S.173, Cr.P.C., had not been produced at the trial nor any statement had been rendered regarding their being unnecessary or having been won over or declared hostile---Prosecution closed its side by making statement on 27.07.2024---In such circumstances, it would be considered that prosecution withheld material evidence, thus an adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution under art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Failure to produce material witnesses, without any cogent reason, was deemed to be fatal and created serious dent to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Lal Bux vs State arts — 2025 YLR 1869 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR