ZAHIR vs THE STATE
The appellant was convicted by the Special Court for possession of one kilogram of charas and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The appellant challenged this conviction in the Peshawar High Court, primarily arguing for acquittal based on minor discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, and alternatively requesting a reduction in sentence. The Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution witnesses consistently corroborated the charge of possession. The Court noted that the cross-examination failed to create any significant doubt in the prosecution's case, and there was no evidence of improper motive on the part of the witnesses. Regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the trial court had already adopted a lenient approach given the nature of the offense. Consequently, the Court held that the charge was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence. The judgment reinforces the principle that minor discrepancies in testimony, particularly after a significant time lapse, do not necessarily undermine the credibility of consistent prosecution witnesses.
- Do minor discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses automatically warrant an acquittal in a narcotics possession case?
- Can a sentence be reduced when the trial court has already imposed a lenient penalty for the possession of narcotics?
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, C.J.---Appellant was found in possession of One Kg. Of charas. A case under section 9 C.N.S.A. Was registered against him, vide F.I.R. No,380, dated 28-6-2007 in Police Station Khan Raziq Shaheed, Peshawar.
2. After his arrest and completion of investigation, he was sent to the court of learned Judge Special Court for trial who on its conclusion, sentenced him to undergo 3 months' R.I., with a fine of Rs,2000 or in default to undergo 10 days' S.I., vide judgment dated 8-10-2009.. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, by referring to the minor discrepancies, tried to make out a case for acquittal but when sensed that the magnitude of the discrepancies is not of the type as could call for acquittal of the appellant, he straightaway asked for reduction in sentence. When confronted that the learned trial Court has already taken a very lenient view by awarding three months' R.I. For possessing one Kg. Of charas, he could not advance any other reason in this behalf.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General while defending the impugned judgment, argued that the mere fact that one witness sated that the Murasila was brought by another and the other did not mention anything about that would not constitute a ground for acquittal of the appellant that too when there was a gap of almost two years between the date of occurrence and that of examining the witnesses.
5. We have gone through the evidence of the case carefully and have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. A look at the evidence would reveal that all the P.Ws. Consistently charged the appellant for having been found in possession of one Kg. Of charas. The P.Ws. Were subjected to a lengthy cross- examination but nothing was brought through their mouth as could create any dent in the prosecution version. There is also nothing on the record to show that any of the P.Ws. Had any or improper motive for charging the appellant. We, therefore, have no doubt in our mind that charge was proved against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. The argument addressed in the alternative also carries no weight when the trial Court has already taken a very lenient view by sentencing the appellant to three months' R.I. With a fine of Rs,2,000 for possessing one Kg. Of Charas.
7. For the reasons discussed above, this appeal being devoid of merits stand dismissed.