Possession of narcotics, aiding, ABETMENT or association in narcotic offences

Citation Name : 2019 SCMR 608 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : ABDUL GHANI
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 9(c), 14 & 15---Possession of narcotics, aiding, ABETMENT or association in narcotic offences---Safe transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner not established---Effect---In a case where safe custody of the recovered substance or safe transmission of samples of the recovered substance was not proved by the prosecution through independent evidence, it could not be concluded that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Record of the present case showed that safe custody of the recovered substance as well as safe transmission of samples of the recovered substance to the office of the Chemical Examiner had not been established by the prosecution---Station House Officer (SHO)/complainant had stated before the Trial Court that he had deposited the recovered substance at the malkhana of the local police station but admittedly the moharrir of the said police station had not been produced before the Trial Court to depose about safe custody of the recovered substance---Head Constable who had delivered the samples of the recovered substance at the office of the Chemical Examiner had also not been produced during the trial so as to confirm safe transmission of the samples of the recovered substance---Convictions and sentences of the accused persons recorded and upheld by the courts below were set aside in such circumstances and they were acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to them---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2019 SCMR 572 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ARSHAD
Side Opponent : State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 109, 148, 149 & 427---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ABETMENT , rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused persons sought bail on the ground that on the relevant date and time of the incident in question, they were confined in jail in connection with other cases---Police confirmed that on the relevant date and time, both the accused persons were confined in jail, however, as per police investigation, they were responsible to the extent of conspiracy/ABETMENT of the present offence---Prosecution and complainant were not able to point out any evidence from the record regarding conspiracy/ABETMENT by the accused persons---Worth and evidentiary value of the plea of alibi taken by the accused and their involvement in the present case to the extent of conspiracy/ABETMENT was to be determined by the Trial Court, after recording evidence of the parties---Presently case against the accused persons called for further inquiry within the ambit of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C., and accordingly they were released on bail.

Citation Name : 2019 PCrLJ 337 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ARIF
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 302, 324, 109 & 34---Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ABETMENT , common intention, act of terrorism--- Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that the accused along with absconding accused being armed with weapons entered into Masjid and made firing upon brother and father of complainant, due to which his brother died at the spot while his father received serious injuries---Accused persons made severe aerial firing with the help of unknown accused persons to spread terror and panic in the area---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be a matrimonial dispute---Prosecution had produced twelve witnesses including complainant and injured to prove the charges---All the witnesses made contradictory statements and certain dishonest improvements, and also failed to justify their presence at the relevant time---Witnesses had stated that two accused persons entered into the Masjid and made firing upon the victims, but one of the witnesses had stated that three accused persons participated in the crime---Pesh-Imam of Masjid as a prosecution witness had fully exonerated the present accused from commission of crime by stating that two muffled face persons entered the Masjid and made firing upon the victim party---Statement of complainant and other witnesses were silent as to whether the accused persons had concealed their faces with muffles or otherwise---Record showed that some of the witnesses had made attempt to conceal their relations with the victim party, but their such relations were revealed through the statements of other witnesses---Prosecution case was that the accused while entering into Masjid, shouted that the members of victim party be separated and thereafter, they made firing upon the deceased---Fact remained that complainant and a witness were also sons of injured and the accused could easily target them---All the witnesses belonging to the victim party could be easily targeted, but only the deceased and his father were hit and the remaining witnesses including the brothers of deceased were let free---Presence of complainant and his brother being sons of injured at the place of occurrence was doubtful---Such fact did not appeal to logic that by killing a person in presence of his real brothers, accused would not attempt to cause any injury/kill the prosecution witnesses (brothers) leaving them for evidence to be hanged---Conduct of all the witnesses appeared to be unnatural and did not appeal to logic---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.