1992 PLP 1134 (SCMR)
WAZIR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1134 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ali Hussain Qazilbash, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry |
| Parties | WAZIR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1134 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1134 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ali Hussain Qazilbash, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1134 (SCMR) (WAZIR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 24th August, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 18‑10‑1989 of the Federal Shariat Court passed in‑Criminal Appeal No.59/I of 1989). (a) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Arts. 3 & 4‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Duty of prosecution to prove its case against accused to the hilt‑‑‑No such duty was cast upon accused who has only to create doubt in case of prosecution‑‑‑Explanation given by accused in case that heroin in question was owned by passengers who ran away from spot was quite plausible and its possibility could not be ruled out‑‑‑Case set up by accused had certainly created doubt about truthfulness of case of prosecution‑‑‑Conviction and sentence of accused was set aside in circumstances. (b) Burden of proof‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ It is duty of prosecution to prove its case against accused to the hilt‑‑ Accused has only to create doubt in prosecution case. J.D. Akberji, A.‑G., N.‑W.F.P. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑ It is duty of prosecution to prove its case against accused to the hilt‑‑ Accused has only to create doubt in prosecution case. Muhammad Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. J.D. Akberji, A.‑G., N.‑W.F.P. for the State. Date of hearing: 24th August, 1991. ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This appeal by leave, arises from the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Federal Shariat Court, dated 18‑10‑1989.
2. On 28‑2‑1988 at about 6‑20 p.m. a patrol party led by Ajab Gul, A.S.I. at Swabi Jehangira Road intercepted a Suzuki No.PRM‑6088 near the tobacco barns of Haji Toor. The Suzuki was being driven by Niamat Khan and Wazir Muhammad appellant was sitting by his side on the front seat. When the Suzuki was searched, eight bags of heroin concealed in the Tarpals of the Suzuki were found. Each bag was having one kilogram of heroin. The samples of the heroin were sealed and sent to the Chemical Examiner and the two occupants arrested at the spot.
3. Niamat Khan and Wazir Muhammad appellant were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Swabi under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, who vide his judgment, dated 4‑2‑1989, convicted both of them under both Articles of the Order and sentenced each of them to 5 years' R.I., 10 stripes and a fine of Rs.2,500 under Article 3 and to 5 years' R.I., 10 stripes and a fine of Rs.2,500 under Article 4.
4. Both, Niamat Khan and the appellant, filed an appeal in the Federal Shariat Court where notice for enhancement of sentence was served upon both of them. The appellate Court, however, set aside the conviction and the sentence of the appellant and his co‑accused under Article 4 of the Order but while maintaining the conviction of the appellant and his co‑accused under Article 3 of the Order enhanced their sentence of imprisonment from 5 years' R.I. to 10 years' R.I. and to amount of fine from Rs.2.500 to Rs.25,
000. The punishment of stripes, too, was enhanced to 25.
5. Leave was granted to consider the defence taken up by the appellant in this case.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of the Courts and the record of evidence.
7. We have considered the defence taken up by the appellant in the light of the prosecution evidence and we find that the learned appellate Court did not pay any attention to the defence taken up by the appellant. In the criminal trial whereas it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the, accused to the hilt, but no such duty is cast upon the accused, he has only to create doubt in the case of the prosecution. The case set up by the appellant has certainly created doubt in our mind about the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution. The explanation given by the appellant is quite plausible and the possibility cannot be ruled out that the heroin was owned by the passengers who ran away from the spot.
8. In the circumstances, rve accept the appeal and set aside the conviction and the sentence of the appellant. He has a:ready been ordered to be released as per the short order, dated 24‑8‑1991. H.B.T./W‑98/S Appeal accepted.