PCRLJ 2020

2020 P Cr (PLP)

YAR SHAH — Appellant Versus The STATE through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
2019-June-20
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2020 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members N/A
Parties YAR SHAH — Appellant Versus The STATE through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa — Respondent
Primary Law (b) Criminal trial, (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), (c) Criminal trial
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal trial, (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), (c) Criminal trial as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 P Cr (PLP) (YAR SHAH — Appellant Versus The STATE through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Criminal trial (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) (c) Criminal trial

Representation

  • The STATE through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa---Respondent

Headnotes / Summary

S. 9(c)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 340(2)

Possession of narcotics

Right of accused to give evidence on oath

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Mode of arrest

Ownership of vehicle

Registration of FIR after preliminary inquiry

Delay in sending samples of recovered contraband to Forensic Science Laboratory

Effect

Allegation against accused persons was that huge quantity of narcotics was recovered from the vehicle being occupied by them

Accused persons had recorded their statements on oath under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C. and had forwarded a different story in respect of their arrest and lodging of FIR against them by the Anti-Narcotics Force officials

Mobile data collected by the prosecution revealed that the accused persons were present at district 'P' at the time of their arrest

Vehicle from which contraband was recovered, was alleged to be in the ownership of a tout of Anti-Narcotic Force but the documents produced by him were found to be fake

Neither any case was registered against the said person nor was he shown to be fugitive of law although serious allegations were levelled by the accused persons that the vehicle was still in use of said person

Prosecution had failed to prove the recovery of contraband from the vehicle at the place and time shown by them in the FIR, as no recovery memo. was available in that respect

Search proceedings were allegedly conducted in the police station

Identification memo revealed that FIR number was mentioned in the same handwriting and other contents of the said memo suggested that all the memos were prepared after registration of the case meaning thereby that the case was registered after preliminary inquiry

Contraband allegedly recovered from the vehicle of accused persons was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory with a considerable delay

Card of arrest did not reveal the time of arrest of accused while it bore the FIR number

Capital punishment could not be given on shaky kind of evidence

Case was full of doubts as far as the arrest of the accused, recovery of narcotics and even the possession over the vehicle of the accused persons was concerned

Appeals were allowed and the impugned judgments of conviction were set aside, in circumstances.

Duty of prosecution

Benefit of doubt

Scope

Prosecution is duty bound to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and if any single and slightest doubt is created, benefit of the same must go to the accused.

Benefit of doubt

Every benefit of doubt goes to accused regardless of the fact whether he has taken such plea or not.

Judgment & Decree

IKRAMULLAH KHAN, J.

This single judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.292-P/2018 filed by appellant Yar Shah and connected Criminal Appeal No.333-P/2018 filed by appellant Khan Muhammad as both these appeals have been preferred against the one and same impugned judgment dated 14.3.2018 rendered by learned Judge, Special Court (CNS), Peshawar, whereby both the appellants involved in case FIR No.09 dated 10.4.2015 under section 9(c), C.N.S.A., of Police Station ANF, Kohat were convicted and sentenced each to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.100,000/- or in default thereof to suffer six months' SI while benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is extended to the appellants/convicts.

2. According to prosecution case, the ANF officials during Nakabandi intercepted Motorcar bearing registration No.LEB-3389, being driven by appellant Yar Shah while appellant Khan Muhammad was sitting on front seat of the said car. On cursory interrogation, both the appellants disclosed about concealment of narcotics in the vehicle. On the pointation of both the appellants, 20 packets of Charas weighing 1200 grams each (total 24 Kgs) were recovered from the said vehicle. Consequently the contraband along with motorcar were taken into custody, both the appellants were arrested by ANF officials and a case vide FIR mentioned above was registered against them.

3. After completion of investigation, complete challan against the appellants was submitted before the learned trial Court where after framing of formal charge against the appellants, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as four (4) PWs. On close of prosecution evidence, statements of both the appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations levelled against the appellant however, opted to be examined on oath as well as to produce defence evidence. At conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted both the appellants vide judgment dated 24.1.2017 however, the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed by this Court thereby remanding the case to the learned trial Court for decision afresh after hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 22.11.2017.

4. On remand, the learned trial Court after hearing the parties, again convicted and sentenced both the appellants vide impugned judgment dated 14.3.2018, hence the instant criminal appeal.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Special Prosecutor for ANF and gone through the record.

6. Allegation against the appellants is that huge quantity of narcotics has been recovered from the vehicle being occupied by them so the prosecution was bound to prove its case without any reasonable doubt however, as per record there is serious doubt insofar as the recovery of narcotics from the vehicle is concerned. Appellant Yar Shah recorded his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. wherein he has put forwarded a different story in respect of his arrest and lodging of FIR against him by the ANF officials. During course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the appellant has also placed questions over the PWs that actually the accused were arrested by the personnel of Police Station Faqir Abad, who had taken Rs.10,00,000/- from them and thereafter they were charged in the instant case. PW.2 Noshad Ahmad FC, (the alleged witness to the recovery memo Ex.PW.1/1), when asked in this respect, he answered that he did not know and could not comment that his SHO and SHO, Faqir Abad have also taken Rupees Twelve lacs from the accused Yar Shah but he apparently not denied the same. The appellant Yar Badshah has recorded his statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. wherein the prosecution itself admitted that accused were arrested by personnel of Police Station Faqir Abad, Peshawar, which reads as under:- "It is correct that the scuffle took place in front of the bargain opposite to PS Faqir Abad Peshawar." In cross-examination the accused also stated in his cross-examination as under: "It was before Juma prayer time when I along with my co-accused Khan Muhammad were forcibly taken to PS Faqir Abad Peshawar by ANF personnel."

7. The prosecution has not put any suggestion to accused Yar Shah that his examination in chief was false, afterthought and not true. Another defence witness namely Sher Zaman Khan was examined as DW.2 but his examination in chief was not shattered in cross-examination whereby both the statements recorded by DW.1 and DW.2 reveals that the prosecution case as far as the recovery of narcotics is concerned, is highly doubtful. The Mobile data collected by prosecution itself reveals that the accused were present at Peshawar at the time of arrest of accused shown by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant when asked that whether the accused had filed any application before the Governor KPK in order to conduct inquiry against the personnel of ANF and Faqir Abad Police Station Police, he admitted the same that full pledge inquiry was conducted however, the police officials were exonerated in the inquiry but astonishingly it was not brought on record in order to falsify the allegation of accused that they were not arrested in the mode and manner as described by the prosecution.

8. The other important question is that the motorcar was claimed to be ownership of one Muhammad Asif but later on the documents produced by him was found to be fake. Neither any case was registered against the said person (Muhammad Asif) along with one other while they were shown to be fugitive of law although there were serious allegations forwarded by the accused party that the car from which the alleged contraband was recovered, was still in use of accused Muhammad Asif and he was tout of ANF police, while the said Muhammad Asif has filed Appeal No.170-P/2019, fixed today in this Court for custody of the car. The prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of contraband from the car at the place and time shown by them in the FIR as no recovery memo. is available in this respect on record however, all the search proceedings were allegedly conducted in the Police Station ANF, Kohat. The identification memo reveals that the FIR number well mentioned in the same handwriting and other contents of the said memo, which suggests that all the memos. were prepared after registration of the case meaning thereby that the case has been registered after preliminary inquiry. The contraband allegedly recovered from the vehicle of appellants was sent to FSL on 13.4.2015 after considerable delay which also makes the prosecution case doubtful. The card of arrest does not reveal time of arrest of accused while it also bears FIR number. It is settled principle of law that capital punishment could not be given on shaky kind of evidence while this case is full of doubt as far as arrest of accused, recovery of narcotics and even the possession over the vehicle of accused is concerned. The requirement of the criminal case is that prosecution is duty bound to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and if any single and slightest doubt is created, benefit of the same must go to the accused and it would be sufficient to discredit to the prosecution story and entitle the accused for acquittal. Moreover, accused is always considered as the most favorite child of law and every benefit of doubt goes to him regardless of fact whether he has taken any such plea or not. Therefore for the reasons mentioned hereinabove both the above criminal appeals are allowed, the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence is set aside accordingly. Both the appellants namely Yar Shah and Khan Muhammad are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are in custody and be released forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case. The above are reasons of our short orders of even date. SA/235/P Appeal allowed.