Muhammad Kamran vs The State
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner for the possession of 1200 grams of Charas Garda, an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Following a trial, the petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, and sentenced to four years and six months of rigorous imprisonment, with a fine. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the conviction, alleging discrepancies in the description of the contraband between the initial complaint and the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any material infirmity in the prosecution's case. Crucially, the Court ruled that alleged discrepancies in witness testimony cannot be utilized by the defense to challenge the prosecution's case if the witnesses were not confronted with those specific contradictions during the trial, as required by the law of evidence. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction and sentence.
- Can a petitioner claim the benefit of discrepancies in witness testimony if the witnesses were not confronted with such discrepancies during the trial?
- Is the failure to confront prosecution witnesses with prior statements a bar to raising those contradictions on appeal?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 140, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Surprised by a police contingent, the petitioner was found in possession of Charas Garda, weighing 1200-grams within the remit of Police Station Naseerabad Rawalpindi on 26-1-2016; upon conclusion of investigation, he was sent to face trial along with forensic report that confirmed the narcotic character of the substance; in the wake of a regular trial, he was returned a guilty verdict by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Rawalpindi vide judgment dated 17-11-2016; convicted under Section 9 (c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, he was sentenced to 4-years and 6-months RI along with fine of Rs.20,000/- or to suffer 2-months SI in default thereof with benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Petitioner's appeal in the High Court met with no better fate vide impugned judgment dated 16-5-2017 and this brings him to this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner despite being at his best has not been able to point out any serious flaw or infirmity that may be viewed as material or substantial in nature in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. An alleged discrepancy in the description of the contraband recovered, between the complaint and statements of the witnesses went unchallenged during the trial and as such the petitioner cannot claim any benefit thereof in the absence of confrontation within the contemplation of Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984. No case for interference is made out. Petition stands dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 6 cases
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus State 2021 YLRN 42
- BAKHTIAR ALI Versus State 2021 PCrLJN 40
- Sarfraz Ahmed vs The State 2021 MLD 599
- SHAHID KHAN Versus State 2022 YLRN 176
- KHAN BADSHAH Versus State 2021 PCrLJN 46
- Muhammad Faisal vs The State 2022 YLR 1163