Law: Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979

Section: 3

(a) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979) Arts.3 4Possessing intoxicantAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtDelay of about five hours in lodging the FIREffectProsecution case was that 5064 bottles of wine were recovered from the dumper belonging to the accused personsRecord showed that the incident took place at 2:30 p.m. and the report was lodged at 7:30 p.m. with no explanation, whatsoeverStatement of the complainant as well as recovery witness created more doubt regarding veracity of time qua lodging reportRecovery witness stated that three hours were consumed in whole proceedings at place of incident whereas complainant stated that they consumed seven hoursAs per the statement of recovery witness, there was delay of two hours without explanationNot only the delay remained unexplained, rather the very veracity of the FIR became suspicious and doubtfulCircumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accusedAppeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979) Arts.3 4Possessing intoxicantAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtContradictions in the statements of witnessesScopeProsecution case was that 5064 bottles of wine were recovered from the dumper belongings to the accused personsProsecution produced three witnesses to prove its caseRecovery witness stated that 538 bottles of different kind of wine were recovered through recovery memo whereas the recovery memo spoke recovery of 5064 bottlesRecovery witness was neither declared hostile nor the second witness to recovery memo was producedInvestigating Officer admitted in crossexamination that he did not examine the case propertyComplainant stated that they recovered 211 sacks containing 5064 bottles of different brands of wineNot only no consensus among the witnesses on quantity i.e. number of bottles, rather their statements were divergent, contradictory and conflictingInvestigating Officer was silent regarding number of bottles and statement of recovery witness and complainant were contradictory with each other and irreconcilable to the extent that if one piece of evidence was believed that…

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