2004 P Cr (PLP)
KARIM and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Tariq Parvez and Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan Khan, JJ |
| Parties | KARIM and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Tariq Parvez and Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (KARIM and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Javed A. Khan for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 17th September, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑
Arts. 3/4‑‑‑Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/7/8‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Statements of two prosecution witnesses, who were police officials, were full of contradictions, infirmities and discrepancies‑‑‑Courts of law were under no compulsion to accept such contradictory statements blindly and that too in a case involving capital punishment‑‑‑Such statements could not be made basis for conviction of accused‑‑‑Cross‑examination of said prosecution witnesses had revealed that investigation in case harp not been carried properly and fairly‑‑‑Each and every aspect of prosecution case was highly doubtful and the requirements of S.103, Cr.P.C. were flagrantly violated in proof of alleged recovery and despite prior information and availability of independent witnesses same were not associated with recovery proceedings‑‑‑Departure of police from Police Station had not been shown in the Daily Diary‑‑‑Truck containing contraband was apprehended at night and there was no electric light‑‑‑Spot was thickly populated area‑‑‑Shops were open and many persons were present there, but they were not asked to associate with recovery proceedings‑‑‑Onus to prove guilt of accused was always on prosecution which was to prove that it was the accused who had perpetrated the offence and prosecution was to independently discharge that onus irrespective of the plea taken by accused‑‑‑Mere fact that police witnesses had no enmity or grudge or motive to falsely implicate accused persons, by itself, was not a strong circumstance to hold that whatever had been alleged by prosecution should be implicitly relied upon without asking for supporting evidence‑‑ Accused were not found in direct conscious possession of heroin in question and had no concern with it‑‑‑Extending benefit of doubt, conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court, were set aside, in circumstances. Mst. Yasmeen v. The State 2003 YLR 2675 ref. Akhtar Naveed, D.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Appeal No.334 of 2002, decided on 17th September, 2003. ‑‑
Arts. 3/4‑‑‑Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6/7/8‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Statements of two prosecution witnesses, who were police officials, were full of contradictions, infirmities and discrepancies‑‑‑Courts of law were under no compulsion to accept such contradictory statements blindly and that too in a case involving capital punishment‑‑‑Such statements could not be made basis for conviction of accused‑‑‑Cross‑examination of said prosecution witnesses had revealed that investigation in case harp not been carried properly and fairly‑‑‑Each and every aspect of prosecution case was highly doubtful and the requirements of S.103, Cr.P.C. were flagrantly violated in proof of alleged recovery and despite prior information and availability of independent witnesses same were not associated with recovery proceedings‑‑‑Departure of police from Police Station had not been shown in the Daily Diary‑‑‑Truck containing contraband was apprehended at night and there was no electric light‑‑‑Spot was thickly populated area‑‑‑Shops were open and many persons were present there, but they were not asked to associate with recovery proceedings‑‑‑Onus to prove guilt of accused was always on prosecution which was to prove that it was the accused who had perpetrated the offence and prosecution was to independently discharge that onus irrespective of the plea taken by accused‑‑‑Mere fact that police witnesses had no enmity or grudge or motive to falsely implicate accused persons, by itself, was not a strong circumstance to hold that whatever had been alleged by prosecution should be implicitly relied upon without asking for supporting evidence‑‑ Accused were not found in direct conscious possession of heroin in question and had no concern with it‑‑‑Extending benefit of doubt, conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court, were set aside, in circumstances. Mst. Yasmeen v. The State 2003 YLR 2675 ref. Javed A. Khan for Appellants. Akhtar Naveed, D.A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 17th September, 2003.