Proof of Section 9 (c) drug arrest and smuggling out of 100kg of marijuana, allegedly recovered, 5kg sent to a chemical analyst, the remaining 95kg sealed separately, but prosecution witnesses left The sealed case was not identified. Property could not be located, it could not be confirmed in the circumstances that the property produced was the same, which it was alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused, nothing was on record to show that the vehicle. Who has the marijuana recovered from the jeep? The drugs were allegedly recovered from the suspect's possession, after a lengthy delay for no reason, he was sent to the forensic science laboratory, and such delays remained without explanation, the prosecution did not take any evidence to prove it. That the accused had any knowledge of the articles contained in it. The prosecution did not collect any evidence to prove who had placed such a large quantity of marijuana in the jeep, in the absence of the defendant's conscious possession of the suspects' identification, not the basis for sentencing the trial court. May be. The pernicious verdict eliminated the defense evidence. Such a procedure was not only wrong, but the prosecution duty was not guaranteed. It is bound to prove the case against the accused beyond the scope of reasonable doubt and shift the burden. It cannot be done, but the prosecution failed to do so, but the prosecution did not include evidence regarding the circumstances in which the bulk of the marijuana and samples were kept. About prosecuting evidence by the prosecution regarding its recovery from the accused
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
