Conscious possession

2015 MLD 507 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.9(c) & 29Recovery of narcotic substanceAppreciation of evidenceConscious possessionProof

Charas weighing 336 kilograms was recovered from secret compartments of truck in which accused was sitting on the seat next to driver

Trial Court convicted accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life

Plea raised by accused was that he boarded truck on the way and did not know about presence of narcotic substances in secret compartments of truck

Validity

Knowledge of accused was not proved by prosecution through any cogent evidence either oral or documentary

Prosecution simply proved his presence in truck with co-accused and mere presence of accused in vehicle was not sufficient to saddle him with recovery of huge quantity of narcotics

Prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused by proving his connectivity or any nexus with his co-accused or his conscious knowledge about concealed contraband narcotics

Such important aspect of case escaped notice of Trial Court and thereby reached to wrong conclusion by convicting the accused

Findings of Trial Court regarding conviction and sentence of accused were set aside and he was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2015 PLD 157 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9(c) & 25Recovery of narcoticsAppreciation of evidenceConscious possessionProofPolice witnessesChars weighing 15 kilograms was recovered from concealed cavity of vehicle driven by one of the accused

During investigation police arrested three accused two were travelling in the car while the third was alleged to be the person who had hired the vehicle

Trial Court convicted two accused and sentenced to imprisonment for life while the third who was travelling on passenger seat was acquitted as he was blind

Validity

Narcotics was recovered from conscious possession of accused driver of vehicle, which had been proved by prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt through cogent, reliable and convincing evidence

No mala fide or ill will of police officials existed against accused

Police witnesses in such like circumstances were as good witnesses as any other private person

Single dent in prosecution case was sufficient ground for acquittal of any accused

Standard of proof against accused facing charges under offence carrying capital punishment should have been above board, cogent and reliable

No person could be held responsible and convicted on uncorroborated circumstantial/shaky evidence

Prosecution did not succeed in bringing home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of the same was extended to accused who had hired the vehicle

High Court maintained conviction and sentence awarded to driver of the vehicle while accused who alleged to have hired the vehicle was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed accordingly.