RAHAM GUL vs STATE — 2026 SCMR 584 SUPREME-COURT

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

RAHAM GUL VS STATE. S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt. Prosecution case was that 42 kilograms charas was recovered from the vehicle driven by accused/driver and other three co-accused who were present therein. Trial Court convicted the accused and co-accused and sentenced them. Appeal was preferred before the High Court but was dismissed. Validity---In this case the most important evidentiary chain was broken owing to lack of safe custody and transmission of narcotics and no record of when the entry was made in Form-19. Proceedings were not conducted on the spot but were shifted to the police station, thereby creating ample room for doubt. Prosecution failed to prove exclusive and conscious possession of the narcotics by the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Alleged recovery was attributed collectively to all four accused through a joint pointation memo, without clear demarcation of individual responsibility. Moreover, it did not appeal to a prudent mind that individuals transporting contraband would keep it near their feet so openly in a car. Safe custody of the samples was not established as the relevant malkhana registers were withheld and the complainant himself acted as Investigating Officer, thereby compromising the neutrality of investigation. In these circumstances, the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Act, 1997, could not be invoked, as the prosecution's own case fell short of the standard of proof required in criminal law. Consequently, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt, which must always go to the accused as of right rather than concession. Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

RAHAM GUL vs STATE — 2026 SCMR 584 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR