| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2753 2004 SLD 2753 2004 PLD 434 |
Sindh High Court
Cr. Appeal No. 378 of 2002, decided on 20th November, 2003, DATE of hearing: 18th November, 2003.
WAHID BUX BROHI AND RAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, JJ
Abdul Naeem Memon for Appellant. Jawed Akhtar for the State.
Cr. Appeal No. 378 of 2002, decided on 20th November, 2003, DATE of hearing: 18th November, 2003.
WAHID BUX BROHI AND RAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, JJ
Abdul Naeem Memon for Appellant. Jawed Akhtar for the State.
MUHAMMAD SHER
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(c)---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution had examined only police officials and private Mashir who though was with the police party and in his presence recovery was made, but was not examined to support statement of police officials---Police officials were as good witnesses as any other citizen, but when case entirely rested upon evidence of police officials and evidence of private and independent witness was available with prosecution, then prosecution should examine said private person so as to give full support to prosecution story in order to eliminate any false implication of accused---Prosecution did not assign any reason for not examining the said private Mashir; prosecution, in circumstances had withheld best piece of evidence without assigning any reason---If a best piece of evidence available with the party was withheld, then it would be .fair to presume that said party had some sinister motive behind it---Non examination of private Mashir would adversely affect prosecution story and testimony of police witnesses---Complainant/police officer did not make any entry in Station Diary to the effect that he and his party left C.I.A. Centre---Complainant had stated that he prepared Mashirnama at the place of incident, but Investigating Officer after going through said Mashirnama had stated that it was in the handwriting of one who was not member of police party when complainant party left C.I.A. Centre--Apparently Mashirnama of arrest and recovery was not prepared at the place of incident---Possibility of false implication of accused thus could not be ruled out, in circumstances---Prosecution had failed to prove case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt---Accused was entitled for benefit of doubt and was acquitted of the charge. Iltaf Husain v. State 1996 SCMR 167 ref. (b) Criminal trial--- -----If a best piece of evidence---Police officials as witnesses---Police officials were as good witnesses as other citizens, but when case entirely rested upon evidence of police officers and evidence of private and independent witness was available with prosecution, then prosecution should…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492