Section 9 (c) drug possession evidence The value of the evidence doubtful Morrisella's contents and statements of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent with each other The suspect was a resident of the area and owned the agricultural land near the site of the incident. Was also the owner of At the same time, a market consisting of 35 markets, located in nearby shops near the spot witness, which received the information of the detective and monitored the raid, also found no evidence other than the spy's information against the accused. The accused, who failed to appear in court to record evidence, was brought on record for attaching or attaching to an allegedly recovered drug prosecution witness, who testified to himself as an eyewitness to the incident. Despite being present, no action was taken to recover the accused or arrest him. The witness said the witness, who was a fit constable, and who had been with the complainant from the beginning, did not notice any arrest proceedings by the Complainant Investigation for the draft of the sender strangely, in the circumstances. , Was not done in such a manner as the complainant showed that the recovery of the contraband was also due to suspicion that there was not a single weakness of public witnesses in such cases, which caused reasonable doubt. Would have been enough to acquit the accused in an intelligent mind, because the prosecutor's story was filled with suspicion. Lazem's conviction lacks standards and cannot be believed that raising the doubt over the accused, the trial court's decision was set aside and the accused released.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
