Haroon-Ur-Rasheed and others vs The State and others
This matter arises from a criminal petition assailing the judgment of the Islamabad High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioners under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns the sustainability of the conviction for transporting a heavy consignment of cannabis based on the evidence, forensic reports, and joint arrest. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence was consistent, the forensic report confirmed the contraband, and the defense failed to rebut the findings during trial. However, considering that the prosecution's case itself saddled each convict with distinct quantities ranging from 2 to 5 kg, indicating a makeshift union rather than a concerted joint detour, the Court exercised discretion to proportionately modify the sentence. The key principle laid down is that while concurrent findings of guilt based on solid forensic and testimonial evidence will be maintained, the quantum of sentence may be proportionately adjusted where the specific individual attribution of contraband amounts reveals a makeshift rather than a deeply coordinated enterprise.
- Whether concurrent findings of guilt under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be maintained when supported by consistent witness testimony and unrebutted forensic analysis?
- Can the sentence of convicts be proportionately reduced when the prosecution's own case attributes distinct individual quantities of contraband indicating a makeshift association rather than a deeply coordinated joint enterprise?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---On a tip off, the petitioners were intercepted by Anti-Narcotic Force contingent within the precincts of Police Station Rawat at 9/10:00 on 10.10.2016; they were transporting a heavy consignment of narcotics concealed in different portions of a car; the search led to discovery of ten packets of contraband, weighing 10-kg, surreptitious ly placed in different cavities, forensically confirmed as cannabis; they were indicted by the learned Special Judge (CNS ) Islamabad who returned them a guilty verdict under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment, they were directed to pay Rs.100,000/- each as fine or to undergo nine months simple imprisonment in lieu thereof, vide judgment dated 19.04.2018; their appeal failed before a learned Division Bench of the Islamabad. High Court vide impugned judgment dated 10 .10 . 2018, wires whereof, are being assailed on a variety of grounds ranging from false implication, discrepant statements of the witnesses, non-availability of support from the public and a forensic report with deficient protocols. The learned Law Officer faithfully defended the impugned judgment, according to him, the prosecution succeeded in proving the charge to the hilt beyond a shadow of doubt.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. We have gone through the evidence to find the witnesses in a substantial unison on all the details of the episode; petitioners' joint arrest with the vehicle they were travelling in and seizure of contraband therefrom are circumstances heavily looming over their culpability . Forensic report substantially details the procedure adopted by the analyst to undertake the analysis, unambiguously confirming the narcotic character of the contraband, a conclusion that went unrebutted/ unchallenged during the trial. Petitioners' different backgrounds, converging in their illicit pursuit, the only common ground, by itself confirms a collaboration in a purpose far from being usual or just. Inconsequential cross-examination and reticent denials, in retrospect, lend a mute support to the prosecution in its quest to drive home the charge. In the totality of circumstances, we are not persuaded to take a view other than the one concurrently taken by the Courts below . However , distinctly saddled with different quantities of the contraband by each convict, ranging from 2 to 5 k.g., a case set up by the prosecution itself, spells out a makeshift union instead of a concerted joint detour , therefore, we are inclined to proportionately mould the sentence.
Consequently , while maintaining their conviction, sentence awarded to them is reduced to a period of 5-years' R.I. with a corresponding reduction in the fine to the tune of Rs.50,000/- each with 6-months' S.I. in the event of default, a wage conscionable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. With the aforesaid modification, the petitions are converted into appeal and partly allowed.