Sections 9 (c) and 49 convictions of intoxicant evidence Define the sentence, a modicum of both the prosecution's witnesses who dismissed the ocular account, was examined, but the contradictory statements of their evidence were clear. The suspect was arrested by the detective. Fifteen slabs of marijuana were allegedly recovered from the alleged occupation of the accused, which allegedly recovered fifteen slabs of marijuana from the occupants of the accused, but only 500 grams was extracted as a specimen and was analyzed by chemical analysis. Was sent to the car. The evidence for the recovery of the cannabis was still solid, but the fact is that the prosecution's case was ambiguous because not every slab was sampled, in such a situation and in strange circumstances, only the commission responsible for the crime. Can be fixed. The recovery of 500 grams could not be solely attributed to the accused in the remaining four recovered cases from which there was no pattern as it was extracted and these illegal and non-contradictory contradictions were trivial in the statements of both the prosecution witnesses. And was not fatal to a prosecution case when the addict was convicted on the basis of the amount of recovery, then that should be the primary standard. For the prosecution, it was the recovered substances, drugs etc. For this purpose it had to take all precautions and the case had to be proved foolproof. The property of the case remained in the possession of the complainant, who was the state through the police. There was concern. Cannot be left at the mercy of the police who, as the complainant, witness, and realtor of the property in such cases
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
