12. The prosecution examined Mst. Saima Iddress and Mst. Nargas as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively who statedly were the ladies arrested in Saudi Arabia, while transporting heroin in their private parts. The prosecution has failed to bring on record any tangible evidence showing that the said witnesses were actually arrested on the said charges in Saudi Arabia. None of these witnesses implicated any of the appellants that they have ever inserted any material in the private parts of their body. Though their statements under section 164 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, were recorded but those are full of legal infirmities and cannot be made basis for recording of conviction of accused. Their statements clearly suggest that the same were even not recorded voluntarily and with free will. The same is almost the position of other private witnesses produced in this regard. Reliance in this respect can be placed on “BAGH ALI versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND ANOTHER” (1983 SCMR 1292).
Part of judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Criminal Appeal
62-99
| 2015 LHC 5756 |
0 Comments