YOUSAF KHAN vs STATE — 2026 SCMR 686 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.

YOUSAF KHAN VS STATE. S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substances---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Scope---Prosecution case was that 21.150 kilograms of charas and 1200 grams opium was recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle driven by appellant---Seizing Officer reiterated the same story as set forth in the FIR regarding the arrest of the petitioner and the alleged recovery of narcotics from secret cavities of the vehicle---Recovery witness also posed to have witnessed the recovery---According to the Seizing Officer, the Motorway Police Officials were present at the time of recovery of the narcotics from the vehicle---However, said witness candidly admitted that he neither requested nor directed any of the Motorway Police Officials to witness the recovery proceedings---Said witness further conceded that any incident occurring on the Motorway was mandatorily reported to the Motorway Police---The Seizing Officer had not furnished any explanation, much less a plausible one, as to why the Motorway Police Officials who allegedly helped in intercepting the vehicle of the petitioner were not cited as witnesses to the recovery proceedings or at least cited as prosecution witnesses in the challan---A Police Official of the Motorway Police was summoned as Court Witness---Bare perusal of deposition of the Court Witness revealed that he completely refuted the version of the Seizing Officer---Said witness deposed that on 06.07.2012 he along with one "SR" was on routine patrolling duty when they intercepted and apprehended a vehicle allegedly driven by the petitioner on the spot; that upon search of the vehicle, 22.500 kilograms of charas and 6.500 kilograms of opium were recovered; that he immediately informed the DSP, the Control Room and other Police Station about the incident; that information was also conveyed to the Anti Narcotic Force who reached the spot and the recovered contraband along with the apprehended accused and the vehicle was handed over to them through a proper receipt---During cross-examination by the defence, the Court Witness stated that the incident occurred during daytime between 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. on 06.07.2012, which contradicted the time of occurrence mentioned by the Seizing Officer in the FIR as 09:00 p.m.---Said witness categorically stated that no prior information was conveyed to them by the Anti Narcotic Force regarding the vehicle in question---Said witness further stated that the Anti Narcotic Force Officials neither searched the vehicle nor recovered any narcotics in their presence---Said witness clarified that it was the Motorway Police who informed the Anti Narcotic Force after the arrest and seizure, and that the Anti Narcotic Force Officials arrived at the scene nearly four hours later---Statement of said witness was never recorded by the Anti Narcotic Force during the investigation---Such contradictions between the two versions cast a deep shadow on the prosecution's case---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed; the conviction and sentence of the petitioner recorded by the two Courts below were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

YOUSAF KHAN vs STATE — 2026 SCMR 686 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR