2022 YLR 1238
Safe custody and transmission of samples of the narcotic from the police to the Chemical Examiner was not established---Effect---Allegation against the accused was that three kilos and 981 grams of heroin was recovered from his possession---According to prosecution version, the complainant handed over the case property to a constable, who was not produced as a witness during the course of trial---Said constable was neither cited as a witness in the calendar of witnesses nor his statement was recorded during the course of trial---Safe custody of the case property in that case had been compromised---Prosecution was under bounden duty to establish every limb of Safe custody of the recovered contraband---In case it was not established beyond doubt, the same could not be used against the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
2022 PCrLJ 1846
Safe custody ---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused was apprehend at the airport while attempting to smuggle narcotics---Complainant had failed to show any official document on the basis of which he was permitted to perform his duties at the airport---Distance between Customs House and airport was 15 kilometers but he took almost 12 hours to reach there---Lady Constable who had searched the accused was not produced as a witness, as such, best evidence was withheld---Investigating Officer had not investigated as to how and when the luggage and narcotics were shifted from airport to Customs House---Investigating Officer had not taken CCTV footages at the airport during investigation though admitted that cameras were installed outside and inside of the airport---CCTV footage in such like incident was mandatory, which ruled out the possibility of false implication to a good extent---Investigating Officer had not stated that he had delivered the samples in the office of Chemical Examiner---Prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt against the accused---Appeal was allowed, conviction was set aside and the appeal filed by the prosecution against acquittal of co-accused was dismissed, in circumstances.
2022 PCrLJ 1233
Safe custody and transmission of samples of the narcotic from the police to the Chemical Examiner was not established---Effect---Prosecution case was that twenty five bags of bhang weighing one maund each was recovered from the possession of the accused persons---Statement of Moharir clearly revealed that he only received twenty five sealed parcels of samples which he statedly transmitted to the office of Forensic Science Agency and never received remaining case property---Case property was neither received by Moharir nor kept by him in Safe custody ---Report of Forensic Science Agency itself got exhibited by the prosecution, did not reflect that said parcels of samples were sent back from the Forensic Science Agency, yet same had been produced in the court---Said parcels of samples were never deposited in the office of Forensic Science Agency---Safe custody of parcels of samples from point/date of recovery to its receipt in Forensic Science Agency had not been proved, in circumstances---Safe custody of case property from recovery to its production in the court had not been proved---Proving unbroken chain of Safe custody of case property and parcel of sample was necessary for conviction in narcotics case, because recovery in such cases was not mere corroboratory piece of evidence rather it constituted the charge and entailed punishment---If said unbroken chain of Safe custody had not been proved, then it was fatal for the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had been failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances
0 Comments