GUL SALEEM SHAH and another SHAH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Federal Shariat Court, which maintained the conviction and sentences of the petitioners for the possession of 110 kilograms of heroin. The petitioners were apprehended in a vehicle containing the narcotics. The core legal question was whether the contradictions between the testimony of the prosecution's Group Leader and the Mashirs (witnesses) rendered the prosecution's case doubtful, thereby entitling the petitioners to the benefit of doubt. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence, finding that the testimony of the Group Leader was sufficient to establish guilt, particularly as the Mashirs appeared to have been won over by the smugglers. The Court affirmed that minor procedural irregularities, such as the handling of the narcotic samples between laboratories, did not undermine the essential facts of the recovery. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, establishing that the testimony of a credible witness can sustain a conviction even if other witnesses are inconsistent or hostile.
- Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a Group Leader when the Mashirs provide contradictory statements?
- Does the potential winning over of prosecution witnesses by the accused entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
- Does the transfer of narcotic samples between different laboratories for chemical examination invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
- Article 26, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This order will dispose of the above two petitions.
2. ' The case of the prosecution briefly is that on 17-12-1986 Athar Hussain Khan Afridi, Group Leader P.N.C.B. With his staff was present on patrol duty near Taj Mahal Hotel on Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi when he received a secret information that one Toyota Corolla white colour car bearing Registration No,173-018 was parked opposite Cardio Vascular Institute, Karachi and three suspicious character Pathans were sitting therein. He took Abdur Rahim and Muhammad Javed (Mashirs) with him and reached the spot, located the car and found that Shah Mahmood (petitioner in Cr. P. No, 66-R(S)/88 was sitting on the steering wheel while GuI Saleem Shah (petitioner in Cr. P. No, 65-R(S)/88) was sitting by his side on the front side and Shah Faiz Alam (petitioner in Cr. P. No,65-R(S)/88) was occupying the rear seat. He conducted the personal search and thereafter also conducted the search of the car which led to the recovery of 5 bags weighing 110 kilograms of heroin.
3. ' The petitioners were convicted under Article 4 read with Article 26 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to life imprisonment with whipping of 30 stripes each and a fine of Rs,50,000.
4. ' On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court maintained the conviction and sentence. Hence these petitions for leave to appeal.
5. S. M. Zaffar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has mainly argued that the statement of the two Mashirs contradicts the statement of Athar Hussain Khan Afridi, the Group Leader, which makes the case doubtful and that this circumstance entitles the petitioners to the benefit of doubt.
6. 'We observe that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Courts below and they have held that the statement of the Group Leader (Athar Hussain Khan Afridi) carried conviction and could be acted upon despite the inconsistent statement made by the Mashirs who appear to have been won over by the heroin smugglers.
7. ' We agree. The question raised before us really pertains to a question relating to the appreciation of the evidence. If the Courts below were satisfied that the deposition of Athar Hussain Khan Afridi was, by itself, quite sufficient to bring home the guilt, the same could be acted upon.
8. ' Some other minor points were also urged such as that the car in which the alleged narcotic substance was recovered was sent in the first instance to one laboratory and then retrieved from there and later on sent to the P.N.C.B. Laboratories for chemical examination (which sent a positive report) which do not affect the prosecution case. The essential facts are that the petitioners were caught on the spot, the narcotic substance was recovered from the car in which they were found sitting and the same was positively found to be heroin.
9. ' In these circumstances, no good ground for interference with the judgments of the Courts below is made out. These petitions are dismissed.