Tests conducted by the Chemical Examiner, the result of which led him to conclude

9. We have observed that the report of Chemical Examiner (ExhPE) though contains the opinion of the Chemical Examiner that the packet sent for chemical analysis in this case contains heroin which can be used to cause intoxication yet the said report does not reflect the detail of the tests conducted by the Chemical Examiner, the result of which led him to conclude that the sample parcel was containing heroin as is evident from the report and the relevant portion which reflects the detail of tests is not legible i.e. conducted and required to identify the contraband material, the absence of which renders this piece of evidence doubtful and that has brought the edifice of prosecution case to earth. In this regard guidance can be sought from the esteemed judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ikramullah and others v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002). Mubashar Hussain Shah 1511/HC (PW-1), who transmitted the sample parcel to the office of Chemical Examiner, during his cross examination, has maintained that the case property was handed over to him at 07.00 p.m. on 14.12.2013 which gives rise to a question that if it is so then how the said parcel was received in the concerned office on the same day at or after 07.00 p.m. as said office does not remain open till such time. Muhammad Nawaz, SI (PW-4), the investigation officer of this case has admitted that the room from where the contraband material was recovered at the pointation of the present appellant was not locked when he reached there along with the police party and the appellant to effect the recovery and he has also candidly maintained as under: -

 “…The said room was not in locked condition. There is a possibility to enter any body else in the said room…The Almirah was not in locked condition…” This reproduced part of the statement of Muhammad Nawaz, SI (PW-4) reveals that the place of recovery was not in exclusive possession of the appellant as the room was not locked and also the almirah from which the heroin was allegedly recovered at the pointation of the appellant was accessible for other dwellers of the abode which creates doubts about the veracity of the recovery of contraband material at the instance of the appellant. When these observations are considered in conjunction with the evidence furnished by witnesses appearing in defence of the appellant i.e. Zar Khan (DW-1), Mehmood Khan (DW-2) and Muhammad Yasin (DW-3), the prosecution case becomes doubtful while the responsibility of proving its case squarely lies upon the shoulders of the prosecution and weaknesses of defence cannot absolve the prosecution of its responsibility to prove the case. In view of above, this court is of the firm opinion that the prosecution remained fail to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. It is by now well settled law that if there is a single circumstance which creates reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same is sufficient to give benefit of the same to the accused, whereas, the instant case is replete with circumstances which have created serious doubts about the prosecution story 

Part of Judgment

THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 

Criminal Appeal
38-15

2015 LHC 6231