Appreciating Section 9 (c) drug trafficking evidence, the prosecution's version appears to be very plausible and common sense, while the defendant's version of the denial was based on simplicity, he did not appeal because of the logic and 76 kg. Heavy amounts of marijuana, the prosecution's witnesses can not be offended without any hostility to the accused, there is no reason why the actual culprits are freely involved in falsely accusing the accused. Was done, the prosecution had fully proved that the accused was driving the truck with the accompanying accused and was on the truck at the relevant time. The 76 kilograms of marijuana was recovered from the secret villages, the prosecutor in question did not have to legally prove the suspect's relationship with the truck as an owner or driver because the case was to go on. Judgment should be made on the basis of the facts, which were on record, the presence of the accused persons in the truck at the relevant time, the arrest and recovery of marijuana from the secret cavities of the truck is beyond any reasonable doubt and the trial court has given the defense charge. The prescription truck, the driver, and its cavities were precisely excluded, weighing 76kg. A traveling companion had to know the equipment on board, deployment of FIRs, recovery memos and prosecution witnesses showed that all the packets contained small quantities from each slab for chemical analysis. These were found in the presence of such direct evidence in the absence of any kind of corruption or hostility by the presence of the laboratory, the conviction of the accused's involvement in the commission of the crime
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
