Mst. Shireen alias Samina vs State Benefit of doubt — 2026 PCrLJ 169 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.

Mst. Shireen alias Samina VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Prosecution bore the bounden duty to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt---If areasonable doubt arises, its benefit must be extended to the accused, not as a matter of concession, but as a matter of right. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 169 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. Shireen alias Samina VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single reasonable doubt is sufficient to discredit the prosecution's case. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 169 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. Shireen alias Samina VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody and transmission of narcotic and samples not established---Prosecution case was that 1580 grams and 1130 grams charas was recovered from the accused-appellants respectively---In the present case, the complainant deposed that the narcotic substances recovered from the appellants were seized, sealed into two separate parcels under memo. of arrest, and thereafter handed over to Head Constable, Head Moharrar, as reflected from the entry No.107 of 2023 dated 28.04.2023---Investigating Officer stated that on the same day, i.e., 28.04.2023, he proceeded to the place of incident, and later on 03.05.2023 deposited the sample parcels in the office of the Chemical Examiner---Head Constable asserted that on 02.05.2023, the said parcels were delivered by him to Investigating Officer---Perusal of the extract of Register No.XIX revealed that in column No.2, the name of complainant along with the date of occurrence had been incorporated, but in columns No.6 and 7, it was recorded that the entire case property was handed over to Investigating Officers on 02.04.2023---Said date preceded the alleged occurrence of the offence, which, according to the prosecution itself took place on 28.04.2023---No explanation whatsoever had been furnished by the prosecution as to how the case property could have been handed over or received on a date anterior to the incident---Such a glaring contradiction shook the very foundation of the prosecution's claim of safe custody and transmission of the narcotics---Chemical Examiner's report recorded that two sample parcels were received in the said office on 03.05.2023 under memorandum dated 02.05.2023, bearing date 29.04.2023, through Investigating Officer---Such inconsistency in dates and absence of any cogent explanation casted serious doubt upon the integrity of the chain of custody, which was a condition precedent for the report of the Chemical Examiner to be treated as reliable evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PCrLJ 169 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. Shireen alias Samina VS State S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chain of custody of narcotic substance not proved---Prosecution case was that 1580 grams and 1130 grams chars was recovered from the accused-appellants respectively---According to the prosecution's own stance, the entire case property was forwarded to the office of the Chemical Examiner for analysis---However, the record was conspicuously silent as to who subsequently brought back the case property from the said office and when it was returned for its production before the Trial Court during the course of evidence---Prosecution had not examined any official or produced any documentary proof to establish this crucial link---Safe return and production of case property in Court was as essential as its safe transmission to the Chemical Examiner, because unless that chain was shown to be complete and free from suspicion, the sanctity of the case property stands compromised---In narcotics cases, where the conviction primarily rested upon the report of the Chemical Examiner, any gap in the chain of custody vitiated the evidentiary value of such a report and rendered it incapable of sustaining conviction---Prosecution was under a bounden duty to establish not only the recovery of narcotics, but also the separation of samples and their onward transmission through safe and secure hands---Any lapse or violation in that regard strikes at the very root of the prosecution's case---Since the prosecution had failed to establish the safe custody and secure transmission of the parcels of case property from the police station to the office of the Chemical Examiner and thereafter to the Court, the report of the Chemical Examiner had consequently lost its conclusiveness and could not be relied upon as the basis for conviction---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Mst. Shireen alias Samina vs State Benefit of doubt — 2026 PCrLJ 169 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ