The appellant as per contents of the crime report disclosed that he uses ‘charas’ and also supplies the same to the big dealers in different districts of the Punjab but surprisingly neither the appellant was got medico legally examined nor his blood test was got conducted. It is also relevant to mention here that no intended buyer at the place of recovery, the appellant allegedly was waiting for, could be arrested and even it was not attempted by the complainant and no disclosure regarding dealers in other districts of the Punjab could be obtained from the appellant during his physical custody. It is also to be noticed that without further investigation, the Investigation Officer got him sent to the judicial custody on 26.08.2021 i.e. very next day of his arrest. He even did not bother to know about and to associate the dealer to whom the appellant had already supplied the contraband against the „Wattak‟ amount of Rs.120,000/- recovered from him during body search.
According to the prosecution case canvassed by the witnesses in their examination-in-chief case property allegedly recovered on 25.08.2021 was handed over to the Investigation Officer Ejaz Ahmad, SI (PW.7) by Rehan Nadeem, ASI (PW.4), complainant of this case, in the shape of parcels besides ‘wattak’ amount of Rs.120,000/- (P.102 to 141), threads (P.99) and polythene bags (P.95 & P.96) which were given to the Moharrar (PW.3) by Investigation Officer (PW.7) on the return of police party to the police station immediately but surprisingly complainant (PW.4) as well as the recovery witness Muhammad Irfan Nazir, SI (PW.6) during cross examination concedes that complainant (PW.4) Rehan Nadeem, ASI convened a press conference at the police station on the day of recovery wherein none from the police party who captured the contraband and the accused/appellant except the complainant was visible in the photograph of press conference. In the said picture admittedly parcels of contraband are visible lying on the table in large number. The recovery witnesses in this regard are discrepant as according to PW.4 & PW.6 press conference took place at police station on 25.08.2021 but PW.5 denies the press conference on 25.08.2021. He and PW.6 however, stated that immediately on return to the police station, the Investigation Officer (PW.7) deposited the case property with the Moharrar Muhammad Sadique (PW.3) and it was placed in ‘Malkhana’ thereafter. How and when the complainant received back the case property in absence of other members of the raiding party and how and when he deposited the same back to ‘Malkhana’ is a fact that has not been explained by any of the witnesses as the prosecution case is silent in this regard. The Investigation Officer (PW.7) during his cross examination has categorically stated that he never returned the parcels to the complainant after receiving the same from him. He also stated voluntarily that soon after bringing the parcels of contraband he got them deposited in Malkhana of Police Station and never produced before the DPO or any court. The vehicle used by the appellant for perpetration of the offence as per prosecution case was produced in the court but at that time the back of rear seat was intact.
Crl. Appeal-631-22
MUHAMMAD RIZWAN AHMED ALIAS BABLO VS
THE STATE ETC
Mr. Justice Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi
11-12-2024
2024 LHC 6145
0 Comments