| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 386 2017 SLD 386 2017 YLR 126 |
Peshawar High Court
Cr. A. No. 111-A of 2013, decided & heard on 10th February, 2016
QALANDAR ALI KHAN, JUSTICE
Abdus Saboor Khan for Appellant. Muhammad Naeem Abbasi, A.A.G. for
Respondent.
Cr. A. No. 111-A of 2013, decided & heard on 10th February, 2016
QALANDAR ALI KHAN, JUSTICE
Abdus Saboor Khan for Appellant. Muhammad Naeem Abbasi, A.A.G. for
Respondent.
SHARAFAT KHAN
VS
THE State.
Law: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997
Section: 9(c)
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 382-B
(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---.--- ---.----S. 9(c)---.---Possession, import and export, trafficking or financing the trafficking of narcotic drugs---.---Appreciation of evidence---.---Charas weighing 25000 grams was alleged to have been recovered from possession of the accused---.---Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment along with payment of fine---.---Positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory, confirming the recovery of Charas, had substantiated the prosecution version---.---Prosecution had not only placed on the record the report of the Chemical Examiner but also produced witnesses, besides the complainant and marginal witnesses, to the recovery memo in order to prove taking samples from each packet, sealing of the same in separate parcels on the spot immediately after the recovery and their safe custody till the samples had been received in the Forensic Science Laboratory on day of the recovery without having been tampered with during that period---.---Court, in order to arrive at just decision, had taken extraordinary step to open the sack and also the packets; said exercise had further reaffirmed the fact the complainant had taken samples from a corner of each slab in the packet---.---Complainant/SHO had recorded a note on the recovery memo to the effect that the place of occurrence was although busy road but despite of his efforts no one from the public had volunteered to become witness to the recovery---.---Accused had failed to discharge the burden to prove existence of malice on part of the police for his false implication---.---High Court observed that it was beyond imagination that the police would have stooped so low to substitute an innocent person for the real culprit and implicate him in a case of recovery of such a huge quantity of contraband, when nothing existed on the record to impute the devilish role of police, that too at the behest of a person whose very nexus with the case was not established---.---Prosecution witnesses remained consistent and coherent regarding material facts of the case---.---Accused had declined to avail the opportunity of both recording his statement on oath as…
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