2004 P Cr (PLP)
SAWAR JAN‑-‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Shah Jehan Khan and Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SAWAR JAN‑-‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions 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: Shah Jehan Khan 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) (SAWAR JAN‑-‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ashiq Hussain Khan and Saleemullah Khan Ranazai for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 1st April, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Mere fact that the police witnesses had no enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused, by itself, was not a strong circumstance to hold that whatever had been alleged by the prosecution should be implicitly relied upon without asking for, supporting evidence‑‑‑Prosecution was bound to independently prove beyond doubt that it was the accused who had perpetrated the offence‑‑ House from where the recovery was made was a house in joint possession and the accused was not residing alone in it‑‑Accused was not present in the house at the time of recovery and he was arrested. subsequently‑ ‑‑Accused, thus, was not in direct conscious possession of the recovered narcotics and had no concern with the same‑‑‑Besides, parcels of the alleged Charas and opium were sent for analysis after 15/16 days of the recovery and the prosecution had failed to explain as to in whose possession the same had remained for such time‑‑‑Possibility of the substitution of the recovered intoxicant, therefore, could not be ruled out‑‑‑Accused was acquitted on benefit of doubt in circumstances. Tila Muhammad v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1379; Mst. Shamim v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1529 and Mst. Iqbal Bibi v. State 2000 PCr.LJ 1812 ref. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Burden of proof‑‑‑Onus to prove guilt is always on the prosecution which is to prove that it is the accused person who has perpetrated the offence‑‑‑Prosecution is to independently discharge the onus irrespective of any plea taken by accused‑‑‑Mere fact that the police witnesses had no enmity or grudge to falsely implicate the accused, by itself, is not a strong circumstance to hold that whatever has been alleged by the prosecution should be implicitly relied upon without asking for supporting evidence‑‑‑Prosecution is not absolved of its initial duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in circumstances. Gohar Ali Zaidi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Mere fact that the police witnesses had no enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused, by itself, was not a strong circumstance to hold that whatever had been alleged by the prosecution should be implicitly relied upon without asking for, supporting evidence‑‑‑Prosecution was bound to independently prove beyond doubt that it was the accused who had perpetrated the offence‑‑ House from where the recovery was made was a house in joint possession and the accused was not residing alone in it‑‑Accused was not present in the house at the time of recovery and he was arrested. subsequently‑ ‑‑Accused, thus, was not in direct conscious possession of the recovered narcotics and had no concern with the same‑‑‑Besides, parcels of the alleged Charas and opium were sent for analysis after 15/16 days of the recovery and the prosecution had failed to explain as to in whose possession the same had remained for such time‑‑‑Possibility of the substitution of the recovered intoxicant, therefore, could not be ruled out‑‑‑Accused was acquitted on benefit of doubt in circumstances. Tila Muhammad v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1379; Mst. Shamim v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1529 and Mst. Iqbal Bibi v. State 2000 PCr.LJ 1812 ref. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Burden of proof‑‑‑Onus to prove guilt is always on the prosecution which is to prove that it is the accused person who has perpetrated the offence‑‑‑Prosecution is to independently discharge the onus irrespective of any plea taken by accused‑‑‑Mere fact that the police witnesses had no enmity or grudge to falsely implicate the accused, by itself, is not a strong circumstance to hold that whatever has been alleged by the prosecution should be implicitly relied upon without asking for supporting evidence‑‑‑Prosecution is not absolved of its initial duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in circumstances. Ashiq Hussain Khan and Saleemullah Khan Ranazai for Appellant. Gohar Ali Zaidi for the State. Date of hearing: 1st April, 2004.