HAKIM AU vs THE STATE
This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Special Judge (C.N.S.) Larkana under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1,000 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of possession beyond a reasonable doubt, given the reliance solely on official witnesses and the absence of independent corroboration. The Sindh High Court found significant flaws in the prosecution's case, noting the absence of a Roznamcha entry regarding the patrol, the failure to produce independent witnesses despite the alleged recovery occurring at a public place during the day, and material contradictions between the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the weighing of the contraband. Relying on the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the Court emphasizing that benefit of doubt is a right, not a concession.
- Whether the failure to produce independent witnesses in a narcotics case involving a public recovery creates reasonable doubt?
- Does a material contradiction between prosecution witnesses regarding the weighing of contraband entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
- Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a matter of right for an accused when reasonable doubt exists?
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
' S.A. RABBANI, J.--- The appellant has been convicted, by the Special Judge (C.N.S.) Larkana under section 9(b) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, on the charge of possession of 1,000 grams Charas. He has been sentenced to suffer R.I. For seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000.
This conviction and sentence has been called in question by way of the present appeal.
2. The appellant was, allegedly, arrested by Mushtaque Ali, Excise Inspector, D.I.O., Larkana on 27-12- 1998 at 12-30 p.m. From Bagan Shah on Kambar Drigh Road, when the Inspector was on patrol alongwith five other Excise Officials. On that occasion 1,000 grams Charas was secured from possession of the appellant. In the charge-sheet, only two witnesses were mentioned, in addition to the complainant/Investigating Officer, and they were Excise Constables Abdul Majeed and Sikandar Ali. The District Attorney, however, deemed it sufficient to examine only one of them.
3. Mr. Nisar Ahmed Abro, learned Advocate for the appellant, pointed out contradictions in the evidence .Of the two witnesses examined by the prosecution. He further submitted that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. The learned Advocate cited case-law in support of his contentions, out of which Tarique Pervez v. The State 1995 SCM R 1345 has relevance and applicability in this case. In that case, it was held that for giving an accused benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts and if there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to the benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.
4. The only fact needed to be proved in this case was that the appellant was having with him the Charas, for which he has been convicted. For its proof, the prosecution examined only two witnesses who are Excise Officials. P.W. Inspector Mushtaq Ali said that they left for patrol after making an entry about it in Roznamcha, but no such entry was produced before the Court. The Charas was, allegedly, secured from the appellant at day time, at a public place, but there is no independent witness. These circumstances indicate a possibility of the case having been prepared at the Excise Office. That could have been done very conveniently.
5. Further, the statements of the two witnesses differed in description of some facts e.g. The Inspector said that Charas was weighed by Muhammad Bux. The other witness said that it was weighed by the Inspector himself.
6. The State Counsel supported the conviction and sentence but he could not show that the case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
7.In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the prosecution case was doubtful and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Appeal is, therefore, allowed and the conviction and sentence is set aside. Appellant stands acquitted. He should be released forthwith.
Cited by 11 cases
- State through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Nawab Ali Khan 2023 PHC 488
- Mewa Khan vs The State 2024 MLD 1467
- The State vs Sanobar 2022 PHC 442
- Muhmmad Sadiq vs The State 2022 YLR 2392
- AKBAR Versus State 2017 YLRN 277
- ABDUL MANAN and another vs THE STATE 2008 P Cr. L J 1268
- GHULAM ABBAS alias BASU vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 1466
- MUHAMMAD IDDREES BUTT and 4 others vs THE STATE 2004 YLR 3017
- ABDUL MAJEED and another vs THE STATE 2004 MLD 568
- IR AHMAD vs THE STATE 2004 P C R L J 732
- MUNIR AHMAD Versus THE STATE 2004 PCRLJ 732