2007 SCMR 830 (PLP)
SARFRAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 SCMR 830 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction |
| Bench Members | Justice Javed Iqbal, Chairman, Justices Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, Dr. Allama Khalid Mahmood and Allama Rashid Ahmed Jullundhari, Members |
| Parties | SARFRAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (IV of 1979), (b) Criminal trial |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 SCMR 830 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (IV of 1979), (b) Criminal trial as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 SCMR 830 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction bench comprising: Justice Javed Iqbal, Chairman, Justices Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, Dr. Allama Khalid Mahmood and Allama Rashid Ahmed Jullundhari, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 SCMR 830 (PLP) (SARFRAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Muhammad Naeem, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Munir Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 6th November, 2006.
- 2. Sh. Mehmood-ul-Islam, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and contended that implicit reliance should have not been placed on the statements of prosecution witnesses who all are police officials. It is next contended that Ch. Muhammad Latif Inspector C.I.A. was not empowered and competent to investigate the cognizable offence and on this score alone the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. It is argued that there are various contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses which have been ignored by the learned Federal Shariat Court and benefit of doubt could have been extended in favour of the petitioner on the basis of such glaring contradictions.
- 3. We have carefully examined the above contentions, scanned the entire evidence by keeping the defence version in juxtaposition, which mainly revolves around false plantation, concoction of case and substitution for the real culprits. We have also perused the judgment of learned trial as well as the Appellate Courts. The pivotal question which needs determination would be as to whether the factum of recovery has been proved or otherwise'? An indepth scrutiny and careful analysis of the prosecution evidence would reveal that prosecution has succeeded in substantiating thee accusation by producing worthy of credence evidence. The learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner was asked pointedly that why the statement of prosecution witnesses namely Sher Ahmed S.I.P., Malik Mazhar A.S.-I. and Parvaiz should be disbelieved.
- No satisfactory answer could be given except that the witnesses are police officials but this answer seems to have been made in oblivion, of the record because Parvaiz (P.W.3) was not only a private witness but also a respectable inhabitant of the vacinity who witnessed the recovery of heroin and also signed the recovery memo. All the prosecution witnesses were subjected to stern and searching cross-examination but nothing advantageous could be elicited. The alleged recovered power was proved as heroin as per the report (Exh.14) furnished by the Chemical Bacteriological Laboratory and Chemical Examiner to the Government of Sindh, Karachi. The plea of the petitioner that he was substituted with the real culprits appears to be an afterthought, because false plantation of heroin in such a huge quantity is not possible. We are not persuaded to agree with the prima contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that Ch. Muhammad Latif being Inspector C.I.A. was not competent to investigate the case got registered against the petitioner for the simple reason that on the basis of such an irregularity the trial cannot be vitiated. We are not impressed by the contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that no conviction could have been awarded on the statement of witnesses who are police officials because the reluctance of general public to associate as a witness by now has become a judicially recognized fact. There is no such bar under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 that no conviction could have been awarded on the statement of an official witness. There is no caval to the proposition that evidence of sane adult Muslim cannot be rejected simply on the ground that he is an official witness or being police employee. The statement of police witness can be relied upon if his testimony remains unshattered during cross-examination and in absence of any rancour 'enmity or ulterior motive to implicate the accused in such-like cases. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in cases Malik Aman v. State 1986 SCMR 17, Muhammad Shah v. State 1984 SCMR 278; Muhammad v. State PLD 1981 SC 635, Rehan v. State 1976 SCMR 72 and Emperor v. Santa Singh AIR 1944 Lah. 339.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 11-5-2000 of the Federal Shariat Court, Islamabad passed in Criminal Appeal No.78-K of 1999).
Arts. 3 & 4
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103
Qanun -e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.43
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203 F (2B)
Recovery of 50 kilograms of heroin
Fifty kilograms of heroin was recovered from the house of accused in a raid conducted by police
Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, which was maintained by Federal Shariat Court
Plea raised by accused was that all recovery witnesses were police officials and he was substituted for the real culprits
Plea raised by accused was not proved by the record because one of the prosecution witnesses was not only a private witness but also a respectable inhabitant of the vicinity who witnessed recovery of heroin and also signed recovery memo.
All prosecution witnesses were subjected to stern and searching cross-examination but nothing advantageous could be elicited from them
Alleged recovered powder was proved to be heroin as per report of Chemical Examiner
Plea of accused that he was substituted for the real culprits was an afterthought because false plantation of heroin in such a huge quantity was not possible
Conviction could have been awarded on the statement of witnesses who were police officials because reluctance of general public to associate as witness had become a judicially recognized fact-No such-bar existed under Art.43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that no conviction could be awarded on statement of an official witness
Evidence of sane adult Muslim could not be rejected simply on the ground that he was an official witness or was a police employee
Statement of police witness could be relied upon if his testimony remained un-shattered-during cross-examination and in absence of any rancour, enmity or ulterior motive to implicate the accused in such-like cases
Evidence which had come on record had rightly been appreciated by Trial Court, determination whereof was upheld by Federal Shariat Court
No illegality, irregularity or mis-appreciation of evidence could be pointed out by accused
Petition was barred by 1159 days and no justification could 'be furnished for such delay to condone the same
Leave to appeal was refused. Malik Aman v. State 1986 SCMR 17; Muhammad Shah v. State 1984 SCMR 278; Muhammad v. State PLD 1981 SC 635; Rehan v. State 1976 SCMR 72 and Emperor v. Santa Singh AIR 1944 Lah. 339 rel.
Incompetent police official
Effect
Trial cannot be vitiated on the basis that a incompetent police official had conducted the investigation. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL (CHAIRMAN).
Pursuant to a tip off a raid was got conducted by the police party under the supervision of Ch. Muhammad Latif, Inspector C.I.A. on the house of petitioner and as a result of search a huge quantity of heroin i.e. 50 Kgs. was recovered at the pointation of petitioner from one of the rooms of his residence. The petitioner was arrested and after completion of necessary investigation sent up for trial on conclusion whereof he was convicted under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd), Order, 1979 and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1 lac and in case of default to further suffer 3 years' S.I. with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. An appeal was preferred on behalf of petitioner which has been rejected by the learned Federal Shariat Court vide judgment impugned, hence this petition.
2. Sh. Mehmood-ul-Islam, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and contended that implicit reliance should have not been placed on the statements of prosecution witnesses who all are police officials. It is next contended that Ch. Muhammad Latif Inspector C.I.A. was not empowered and competent to investigate the cognizable offence and on this score alone the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. It is argued that there are various contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses which have been ignored by the learned Federal Shariat Court and benefit of doubt could have been extended in favour of the petitioner on the basis of such glaring contradictions.
3. We have carefully examined the above contentions, scanned the entire evidence by keeping the defence version in juxtaposition, which mainly revolves around false plantation, concoction of case and substitution for the real culprits. We have also perused the judgment of learned trial as well as the Appellate Courts. The pivotal question which needs determination would be as to whether the factum of recovery has been proved or otherwise'? An indepth scrutiny and careful analysis of the prosecution evidence would reveal that prosecution has succeeded in substantiating thee accusation by producing worthy of credence evidence. The learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner was asked pointedly that why the statement of prosecution witnesses namely Sher Ahmed S.I.P., Malik Mazhar A.S.-I. and Parvaiz should be disbelieved. No satisfactory answer could be given except that the witnesses are police officials but this answer seems to have been made in oblivion, of the record because Parvaiz (P.W.3) was not only a private witness but also a respectable inhabitant of the vacinity who witnessed the recovery of heroin and also signed the recovery memo. All the prosecution witnesses were subjected to stern and searching cross-examination but nothing advantageous could be elicited. The alleged recovered power was proved as heroin as per the report (Exh.14) furnished by the Chemical Bacteriological Laboratory and Chemical Examiner to the Government of Sindh, Karachi. The plea of the petitioner that he was substituted with the real culprits appears to be an afterthought, because false plantation of heroin in such a huge quantity is not possible. We are not persuaded to agree with the prima contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that Ch. Muhammad Latif being Inspector C.I.A. was not competent to investigate the case got registered against the petitioner for the simple reason that on the basis of such an irregularity the trial cannot be vitiated. We are not impressed by the contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that no conviction could have been awarded on the statement of witnesses who are police officials because the reluctance of general public to associate as a witness by now has become a judicially recognized fact. There is no such bar under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 that no conviction could have been awarded on the statement of an official witness. There is no caval to the proposition that evidence of sane adult Muslim cannot be rejected simply on the ground that he is an official witness or being police employee. The statement of police witness can be relied upon if his testimony remains unshattered during cross-examination and in absence of any rancour 'enmity or ulterior motive to implicate the accused in such-like cases. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in cases Malik Aman v. State 1986 SCMR 17, Muhammad Shah v. State 1984 SCMR 278; Muhammad v. State PLD 1981 SC 635, Rehan v. State 1976 SCMR 72 and Emperor v. Santa Singh AIR 1944 Lah. 339.
4. The evidence which has come on record has rightly been appreciated by the learned trial Court determination whereof has been upheld by the learned Federal Shariat Court vide judgment impugned. No illegality, irregularity or mis-appreciation of evidence could be pointed out persuaded us to grant leave to appeal. It is worthwhile to mention that this appeal is hopelessly barred by time and no plausible justification could be furnished on the basis whereof delay of 1159 days could be condoned. The petition being devoid of merits and being barred by time is dismissed and leave refused. M.H./S-11/SC Petition dismissed.