Defining evidence from Section 9 (c) drug possession and smuggling, 7 70kg of marijuana and 4 05kg of cocaine were found in the accused and samples sent to the lab confirmed the same suspect as the taxi driver. And the two co-accused had rented their car, so he was not aware that the co-accused was smuggling drugs. The co-accused argued that the allegations and allegations leveled against him were exaggerated, and despite the fact that the testimony of both Star Prosecutors was sought, their testimony could be found. By no means, the evidence thus added to the case by the prosecution was first-degree, fair and beyond any reasonable doubt; the accused was tried to escape by linking the accused with crime. Pointed to. Waiting, it was a clear indication that he was aware of the presence of the drug in the vehicle, otherwise there was no reason for it not to bring any document on the way so that it could be proved. The suspect was a taxi driver and the car was registered as a taxi car with local authorities, one of the co-accused had dressed himself in the veil while hiding his identity and his identity was self-enforced by law enforcement agencies. As a cheating woman, therefore, such an act clearly revealed her guilt, furthermore That he was also found in direct possession of the drug, the other accomplices could not be cleared because once one of the drugs was recovered. The co-accused then shifted his burden under the law to reveal who he was
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
