2024 MLD 1134
--S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic— Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt— Contradictions statements in the of witnesses— Prosecution case was that 26-kilograms charas was recovered from the vehicle of the accused— Complainant, in his cross-examination, stated that some quantity of the charas was recovered from the rear seat of the vehicle and some quantity was recovered from beneath the seat of the vehicle---On the other hand, recovery witness stated during cross-examination that the alleged charas was recovered from the secret cavities of the back side of the seat---During cross-examination, the complainant stated that he and two other constables searched the vehicle---On the other hand, recovery witness stated during cross-examination that he and other witness conducted a search what purpose had not been explained---It was not the case that said official was Malkahna-In Charge---For two days, the samples were with him but where he kept them had neither been disclosed in evidence, nor brought on record by other means--- Said Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer had not been cited as a witnesses, nor his S.161 Cr.P.C statement was recorded during investigation to get some clue as to where he had kept the property in the meantime and why---Prosecution case was completely silent on this important aspect of the case, rendering identity of the samples dispatched to the laboratory uncertain--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.[Sindh]
0 Comments