17. There are serious discrepancies in the evidence of the material witnesses which cannot be ignored. Though there is a slight difference in the manner and standard of proof in the cases registered under The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 but the prosecution is always bound to discharge the initial onus of proof. It is now well settled principle of law that in every criminal case, burden to prove the guilt of the accused always lies on the prosecution. Though in terms of Section 29 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, some depart to this general principle was introduced but even in presence of said provision of law, the prosecution cannot be absolved from its initial liability to discharge the onus of proof. The initial onus of proof always lies upon the prosecution and when once it is discharged, then the accused would be burdened to prove the contrary in terms of principles laid down in Section 29 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.The prosecution has badly failed to bring on record any cogent evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The case of the prosecution is fraught with doubts and for earning the relief of acquittal the accused person is not obliged to establish number of circumstances creating doubts but even a single circumstance, creating a reasonable doubt in the prudent mind is sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. In the light of above noted infirmities, we are inclined to observe that the prosecution has badly failed to bring home guilt of the accused. The prosecution case suffers coherent defects and the evidence is full of doubts. Guidance in this respect can be sought from “MUHAMMAD ZAMAN versus THE STATE and others”
Part of judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Criminal Appeal
62-99
| 2015 LHC 5756 |
0 Comments