(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---
----S. 9(c)--- Possession of narcotics--- Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that seventy five kilograms of charas was recovered from the vehicle of the accused persons---Record showed that the FIR was registered with promptitude giving no time for concoction and the statements of the Police witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded promptly which were not significantly improved upon by any witness at the time of evidence---Arrest and recovery was made on the spot and the accused were caught red handed with the narcotic by the police whose evidence fully corroborated each other in all material respects as well as the prosecution case---No major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses was found---Most significantly the narcotic was recovered from the car which was being driven by accused, where the narcotics were on the back seat between two co-accused ladies and as such there was no doubt that all the accused had actual knowledge of the narcotic which was being transported---Car was recovered along with the narcotic---Facts of the case showed that it would be extremely difficult to foist such a large amount of charas---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt---Appeals against conviction were dismissed, in circumstances---Co-accused/respondent was acquitted on the basis of her young age and immaturity having no choice but to get in the car and her lack of blood relationship with the other accused---Such findings were found to be utterly perverse, arbitrary and completely contrary to the evidence on record---Acquitted accused was 20 years of age at the time of the offence therefore, was certainly old and mature enough to be responsible for her actions---No evidence was on record to show that acquitted accused was forced to accompany the accused in the car and that simply because she was not a blood relative to the other accused did not exonerate her---By the same token/reasoning accused who was not related by blood to co-accused persons should also have been acquitted by the Trial Court---Acquitted accused was a neighbour of the accused and thus had a nexus and a reason to be in the car with them---Appeal against the acquittal of accused was allowed, in circumstance.
Ameer Hamza alias Hamza v. The State 2015 PCr.LJ 1402; Ikramullah and others v. The State 2015 SCMR 1002; Abdul Ghani and others v. The State 2019 SCMR 608; Zahoor Ahmad and another v. The State 1997 SCMR 543; Riaz Mian v. The State 2014 SCMR 1165; Mula Jan v. The State 2014 SCMR 862; Noorul Haq v. The State 1992 SCMR 1451; Hussain Shah and others v. The State PLD 2020 SC 132; Tariq Parvez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Rashid Ahmad v. The State 2001 SCMR 41; WAPDA v. Khanmullah and others 2000 SCMR 879; Abdul Khaliq Shah v. The State SBLR 2019 Sindh 197; Shahzada v. The State 2010 SCMR 841 and Shazia Bibi v. State 2020 SCMR 460 ref.
Mustaq Ahmed v. The State 2020 SCMR 474; Nadir Khan v. State 1998 SCMR 1899; Hussain Shah and others v. The State PLD 2020 SC 132; Mehboob-ur-Rehman v. State 2010 MLD 481 and The State v. Abdali Shah 2009 SCMR 291 rel.
(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---
----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Police Officials as witnesses---Reliance---Scope---Prosecution case was that seventy five kilograms of charas was recovered from the vehicle of the accused persons---Evidence of a police witness was as reliable as any other witness provided that no enmity existed between him and the accused---General unsubstantiated enmity had been alleged against the police, which was not worthy of any reliance---Despite lengthy cross-examination none of the witnesses's evidence was shaken---Evidence of the police witnesses reliable, being trustworthy and confidence inspiring was believable, which was corroborative in all material respects---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused persons---Appeals against conviction were dismissed, in circumstances.
(c) Criminal trial---
----Witness---Minor contradictions in statements of witnesses---Scope---Minor contradictions which do not affect the materiality of the evidence can be ignored.
Zakir Khan v. State 1995 SCMR 1793 rel.
(d) Criminal trial---
----Investigating Officer---Complainant being Investigating Officer---Scope---No restriction on the complainant to be the Investigating Officer provided that no animosity or enmity is alleged against him by the accused
Zafar v. State 2008 SCMR 1254 rel.
(e) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---
----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in sending samples for chemical analysis---Scope---Prosecution case was that seventy five kilograms of charas was recovered from the vehicle of the accused persons---Record showed that there was no delay in sending the samples for report of chemical analysis which turned out to be positive with all required protocols being followed---Recovered narcotic was kept in safe custody from the time of its recovery to the time when samples were taken for chemical analysis---No suggestion of tampering with the same had even been made---Narcotic was sealed on the spot, remained sealed in the malkhana for which a malkhana entry had been produced before being transported to the chemical examiner by Head Constable under seal and who was examined as to safe custody and the narcotic reached the Chemical Examiner in a sealed condition as per the chemical report---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused persons---Appeals against conviction were dismissed, in circumstances.
(f) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---
----S. 9(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Possession of narcotics---Appreciation of evidence---Non-association of private witnesses---Scope---Prosecution case was that seventy five kilograms of charas was recovered from the vehicle of the accused persons---Although no independent mashir was associated with the arrest and recovery of the accused, however it had come in evidence that no private person was available to become an independent mashir at the time of arrest and recovery---Even otherwise S. 103, Cr.P.C was excluded for offences falling under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 by virtue of S. 25 of that Act---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons---Appeals against conviction were dismissed, in circumstances.
Muhammad Hanif v. The State 2003 SCMR 1237 rel.
2023 P Cr. L J 1007
[Sindh (Larkana Bench)]
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, JJ
ROSHAN ALI and another---Appellants
Versus Rafiq Khan Lound Adv Rafiq Khan Advocate High Court LLM 0333 6023706
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeals Nos. D-1, D-4 and Criminal Acquittal Appeal
No. D-17 of 2019, decided on 26th January, 2021.
0 Comments