Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Appeal No.192 of 1986, decided on 19th February, 1987.
---Art.4--Conviction, maintainability of--Heroin allegedly from accused--Only two police officials produced as witnesses- Mashir associated from public though available--Heroin sent to Examiner after delay of 19 months--Defence evidence adduced to detention of accused by police and then involved in case--evidence, held, was not sufficient to support conviction--Prosecution ordered in circumstances.
Shamsuddin Soomro for Appellant.
M.A.I.Qarni for the State.
Date of hearing: 19th February, 1987.
Appellant Khalid has filed this appeal against his conviction for an offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentence therefor of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.3,000 or rigorous imprisonment for three months more in default awarded by learned Vth Addl. Sessions Judge (Hudood), Hyderabad Division, by Judgment dated 28 -9-1986 in Cr. Case No.344/85.
Prosecution case against the appellant is that he was detected carrying 20 grams of Heroin in 30 small packets in Hyderabad City on 17-7-1984 by a Police party headed by Merajuddin ASIP. The detection is' alleged to have been witnessed by Muhammad Siddique H.C. and Haji Umed' Ali LNK. He has been held guilty on the evidence of Merajuddin ASIP and Muhammad Siddique H.C., while evidence of four defence witnesses Wali Muhammad, Ali Nawaz, Ghulam Rahib was not accepted.
The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the case against the appellant rests on the evidence of only two Police Officials, namely Merajuddin ASIP and Muhammad Siddique H.C., and no person from public was taken to act as Mashir although the alleged detection took place at a time when some persons from the public could be available. He has next urged that the glaring flaw on the prosecution case is that the suspected substance recovered from the appellant was sent to Chemical Examiner after about 19 months and it is obvious that nothing was recovered from the appellant but some Heroin was procured to foist on him as to prove the case against him. The learned Advocate for the State does not support the Judgment of the trial Court.
The conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of only two Police Officials although some persons from the public could be available for acting as Mashirs. Inordinate delay in despatch of the suspected material to the Chemical Examiner also caused suspicion on the bona fides of the prosecution case. The evidence adduced by the appellant supports allegations that he was detained at the Police Station and involved in the case. Accordingly, there was no sufficient evidence for convicting the appellant. The appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the trial Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. His bail bonds stand discharged.
S.A./K--37/K Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer