ABID HUSSAIN Versus State
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of heroin. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics from the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given that the recovery was witnessed solely by police officials despite the incident occurring in a populated area during business hours. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution’s case was doubtful due to the absence of independent witnesses and the failure of the police to clearly explain the weighing process of the alleged contraband. The court emphasized that while police officials are competent witnesses, their testimony requires strict scrutiny in cases where no independent corroboration is provided, as the possibility of false implication to demonstrate police efficiency cannot be excluded. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and ordered the immediate release of the incarcerated appellant.
- Does the absence of independent witnesses in a narcotics recovery case involving only police officials render the prosecution's case doubtful?
- Should the testimony of police officials in a recovery case be scrutinized with skepticism when no independent corroboration is provided?
- Is a conviction sustainable under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, when the prosecution fails to prove the recovery process clearly?
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South has convicted the present two appellants and one Habib-ur-Rehman under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and has sentenced accused persons Habibur Rehman and Attaullah to undergo R.I. for two years and one month each and fine of Rs.500 each and, in default to further undergo S.I. for one month each and accused Abid Hussain sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and three months and a fine of Rs.500 and, in default to further undergo S.I. for one month.
2. The case was initiated on the F.I.R. lodged by Sub-Inspector Muhammad Ameen Khokhar of Chakiwara Police Station on 23-6-2000 , alleging that he along with his police party, on spy information apprehended the appellants and secured from their possession heroin powder and some cash. According to F.I.R., the police recovered from appellant Abid Hussain 20 grams of heroin, powder in four wrappers of equal weight and Rs.35. From Attaullah appellant, the police recovered 15 grams of heroin powder in three wrappers of equal weight and Rs.25. From Habibur Rahman, the third accused person, the police recovered 15 grams of heroin powder and Rs.45.
3. According to prosecution case, the powder was sent to Chemical Examiner for report and the Chemical Examiner found that without wrapper the weight of heroin powder contents was more than mentioned in the F.I.R. by the police. However, the report was that it was heroin powder.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that despite the fact that the appellants were allegedly apprehended from a populated area and at a business time, no independent witness was involved to prove recovery of the heroin powder from possession of the appellants. All the three witnesses examined are police officials. According to them the wrappers recovered from possession of the appellants and the third accused were of equal weight of five grams. Prosecution witnesses do not clearly state how they weighted the alleged heroin powder and whether it was actually weighed at all. Of course, the police officials are witnesses like any other witness but, in the circumstances, their evidence is to be scrutinized with a deal of skepticism because possibility of false involvement by police just to show their efficiency cannot be ruled out. Absence of independent witnesses, other than the police officials themselves, makes the case doubtful and the benefit of doubt is go to the appellants. Both the appeals are, therefore, allowed and the conviction and sentence of both the appellants are set aside. Appellant Abid Hussain is on bail. His bail bond stands discharged. Appellant Attaullah is in jail. He be released in this case forthwith.
H.B.T./86/FSC Appeal allowed.
Cited by 1 case
- Raja YASIR RAFIQUE vs THE STATE and another 2011 P Cr. L J 491