2024 Y L R 2107
[Balochistan]
Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan C.J and Sardar Ahmed Haleemi, J
INAYATULLAH ---Appellant
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. (T) 115 of 2021, decided on 10th October, 2022.
(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) ---
----S. 9(c) ---Possession of narcotic substances ---Appreciation of evidence ---Ocular
account proved---Prosecution case was that 4000- grams charas was recovered from the
possession of the accused---Prosecution based its case on the testimony of ocular account
furnished by complainant and recovery witness, who arrested the accused red handed along with the contrabands, and accused was alone at the time riding a motorcycle ---
Recovered contrabands were taken into possession vide recovery memo, out of which, five grams from each packet were separated for analysis ---Both the witnesses were put at
lengthy cross -examination, but they remained firm to their depositions and nothing came
forward to suggest that the accused was falsely implicated in the case---Close analysis of
the whole prosecution evidence i.e. recovery of narcotics, the happening of the occurrence in broad daylight, separating the samples from each packet in the prescribed manner and sending them to the Chemical Examiner, report of the Chemical Examiner and the statements of prosecution witness when evaluated conjointly left no room to come to a different conclusion than what had been arrived at by the Trial Court ---Appeal against
conviction was dismissed, in circumstance.
(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) ---
----S. 9(c) ---Possession of narcotic substance ---Appreciation of evidence ---Defence plea
not proved---Prosecution case was that 4000 -grams charas was recovered from the
possession of the accused ---Defence plea was taken by the accused by producing two
defence witnesses, who deposed that on 31" March, 2021, they along with accused (total 6
persons) were sitting in Chakpol Kor Buleda, where the police came and arrested them, and later on, except the accused and one person "S", the remaining four persons were released ---Admittedly, both the defence witnesses neither informed any notable of the area
in that regard nor filed any complaint against the police ---Both the defence witnesses
failed to show any malice, ill- will or enmity against the accused by the police ---When the
prosecution version was put in juxtaposition with the defence, the prosecution case seemed to be more reliable and believable, as safe custody and transmission was probable, therefore, the statements of defence witnesses were of no avail to the accused ---Appeal
against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.
(c) Criminal trial---
----Police witnesses, evidence of ---Scope ---Police Officials are as good witnesses as
private persons of the society.
Riaz Ahmad alias Raju v. The State 2004 SCMR 988 rel.
Tahir Ali Baloch along with appellant is present on bail.
Sudheer Ahmed, Deputy Prosecutor General ("DPG) for the State.
Date of hearing: 9th September, 2022.
JUDGMENT
SARDAR AHMAD HALEEMI, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment
dated 16th December, 2021 (hereinafter the "impugned judmgnet") passed by the learned
Special Judge Control of Narcotic Substances Act, Mekran at Turbat (hereinafter the "trial Court"), whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9 (c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter the "Act, 1997") and sentenced to suffer four years R.I.
with fine of Rs. 20,000/ -, or in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further suffer
S.I. for six months with benefit of section 382- B, Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 1st April, 2021, the complaint Nadil Shah,
SI/SHO registered an FIR No. 02 of 2021 under section 9 (c) of the Act, 1997 at Police
Station, Buleda, to the effect that on 1st April, 2021, he along with other police officials were on area patrolling, when spy informed that appellant (accused) was transporting drugs/charas on his motorcycle via Kor -e-Pusht and was coming towards Koshk Buleda; on such
information, they made a secret surveillance at Koshk cross; at 3:00 p.m. a person came on CD-70 motorcycle, who was stopped and on his search, four packets of charas were
recovered from Khurjeen (bag) lying on his motorcycle, who disclosed his name as Inayatullah (the appellant); the recovered charas were taken into possession; on weighing, each packet of charas containing 1000 gram total 4000 grams; the appellant was arrested and
the motorcycle CD -70 black in colour bearing Engine No. 2511015, chassis No. A9211023
was also taken into possession.
3. After usual investigation, challan was submitted before the trial Court and the trial
commenced.
4. The trial Court after fulfilling all legal formalities, framed the charge against the
appellant, to which he did not plead guilty.
5. The prosecution examined six witnesses. After completion of prosecution evidence,
the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He did not examined himself on oath
as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. however, he produced two witnesses DW -1 Niaz
Ahmed and DW -2 Sagheer Ahmed in his defence.
6. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and
sentenced the appellant, hence this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court despite glaring
contradictions in the statements of the prosecution has failed to appreciate the same in its
true perspective and undue weight was given to the same; that no private witness was associated by the prosecution from locality, which creates doubt in its case; that the alleged samples were kept in unsafe custody and were also sent for examination after a considerable delay; that all these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment, which resulted into glaring illegalities and irregularities.
8. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General supported the impugned
judgment and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt; that the recovery of contraband has been proved from the appellant by prosecution by producing trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence; that the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of material available on record, which is liable to be sustained.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy
Prosecutor General and perused the available with their able assistance.
10. The prosecution in order to prove the charge against the appellant produced six PWs.
PW-1 Nadil Shah, SI/SHO, who is complainant of the case, reiterated the contents of
Murasla Ex.P/1 -A. PW -2 Shamsheer Ahmed Constable is a recovery witness, brought on
record seizure memo. of recovered charas Ex.P/2 -A and motorcycle as Art:P/4, PW -3, Shah
Jee Head Constable/Head Moharor, who kept the case property in Malkhana and sent the samples to the Laboratory for analysis. PW -4 Safar Khan constable, special messenger, who
took the samples of case property to FSL Quetta and brought back its reports. PW -5 Umar
Nazir SI, 1st Investigating Officer, who produced the FIR Ex.P/5- A and site sketch as
Ex.P/5- B. PW -6 Saeed Ahmed, SI, is the 2nd Investigating Officer, who produced
incomplete challan as Ex.P/6 -A, Lab reports as Ex.P/5- B to Ex.P/5 -E and complete challan
as Ex.P/5 -F.
11. Perusal of statements of PWs reveal that on 1st April, 2021, the police party on secret
information apprehended the appellant and got recovered four packets of charas weighing
4000 grams from the Khurjeen (bag) lying on his motorcycle. In this regard, the prosecution based its case on the testimony of ocular account furnished by PW -1 and PW -2, who arrested
the appellant red handed along with the contrabands, who was alone riding the motorcycle. The recovered contrabands were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.P/2- A, out of
which, five grams from each packet were separated for analysis. Both the PWs were put at lengthy cross -examination, but they remained firm to their depositions and nothing came
forward to suggest that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case.
12. The close analysis of the whole prosecution evidence i.e. recovery of narcotics, the
happening of the occurrence in broad daylight, separating the samples from each packet in the prescribed manner and sending them to the chemical examiner, report of the chemical examiner and the statements of prosecution witness when evaluated conjointly leaves no room to come to a different conclusion that what has been arrived at by the trial Court.
13. As regards the defence plea taken by the appellant while producing DW -1 Niaz
Ahmed and DW -2 Saghir Ahmed, who deposed that on 31st March, 2021, they along with
appellant (total 6 persons) were sitting in Chakpol Kor Buleda, where the police came and arrested them, however, later on, except the appellant and one Safar, the remaining 4 persons were released. Admittedly, both the DWs neither informed any notable of the area in this
regard nor filed any complaint against the police. Both the DWs failed to show any malice,
ill-will or enmity against the appellant by the police. When the prosecution version was put
in juxtaposition with the defence, the prosecution case seems to be more reliable and
believable, as safe custody and transmission is probable, therefore, the statements of DWs are of no avail to the appellant.
14. Besides above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that the menace of
drugs is increasing day by day due to various reasons. Reliance is placed in the case of Faisal Shahzad v. The State, 2022 SCMR 905, wherein it has been held as under:
"It is very disheartening to observe that every day there are many reports of drug peddlers being caught with drugs. This menace is a great threat to a peaceful society and is affecting many lives especially the youngsters, therefore, immediate steps are required to be taken to curb these nefarious activities. The proceeds of narcotics are largely utilized in anti- state/terrorist activities, which this country is facing since
decades."
15. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the statements of
prosecution witnesses cannot be believed, as they are police officials, has no force, as the police officials are as good witnesses as private persons of the society. Reliance is placed on the case of Riaz Ahmad alias Raju v. The State, 2004 SCMR 988, wherein it has been held as under:
"……………….The police officials are as good witnesses as private persons of the society. The testimony of the prosecution cannot be thrown overboard simply on the ground that it has come from the police officials."
16. From the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has
proved its case against the appellant by producing trustworthy, confidence inspiring as well as reliable evidence and safe custody and transmission of samples separated for analysis, and the same has rightly been considered by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and we find no illegality or irregularity therein to interfere therewith, hence is sustained.
For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
JK/21/Bal. Appeal dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.