IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
BENCH AT SUKKUR
Criminal Appeal No. D – 162 of 2018
Before;
Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal
Mahar
Mr. Justice Irshad Ali
Shah
Appellant : Akber Gadani,
through Mr. Rukhsar Ahmed
M. Junejo, Advocate
Respondent : The
State, through Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi
Deputy
Prosecutor General
Date of hearing : 23.01.2019
Date of decision: 23.01.2019
JUDGMENT
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J:- The appellant by way of instant Criminal
Appeal has impugned judgment dated 29.11.2018 passed by learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge CNSA Sukkur, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo R.I for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in case of his
failure to make payment of fine to undergo R.I for three days for an offence
punishable u/s 9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. The
facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal appeal are that the
appellant allegedly was found in possession of 1170 grams of charas by police party of Crime Branch Sukur
which was led by SIP Khushhal Khan, for that he was
booked and reported upon by the police.
3. At
trial, the appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and prosecution to
prove it, examined PW-1 mashir PC Hadi
Bux (Ex.04), he produced memo of arrest and recovery,
PW-2 Complainant SIP Khushhal Khan (Ex.5), he produced FIR, roznamcha
entry and report of Chemical Examiner and then closed the side.
4. The
appellant in his statement recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C
denied the prosecution allegation by pleading innocence. He did not examine
himself on oath or any one in his defence.
5. On
the basis of evidence so produced by the prosecution learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated above.
6. It
is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant being
innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police and the evidence
which was produced by the prosecution at trial being inconsistent and doubtful
has been believed by learned trial Court without lawful justification. By
contending so, he sought for acquittal of the appellant.
7. Learned DPG for the State by
supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of the instant
appeal.
8. We have considered the above
argument and perused the record.
9. It was stated by complainant SIP
Khushhal Khan and mashir PC
Hadi Bux that on 15.07.2015
they with rest of the police personnel were conducting patrol to apprehend
absconding accused and proclaimed offenders when reached at Ayoub
Gate, there they came to know through spy information that a person is selling charas at sweeper colony Sukkur.
On such information, they proceeded to the pointed place. If for the sake of
arguments, it is believed that they proceeded to the pointed place on
information then they were under moral obligation to have associated with them
independent person to witness the possible arrest and recovery. It was not done
by them without any plausible explanation which has made their proceeding to
the pointed place on information to be doubtful. It was further stated by them
that at the pointed place they apprehended the appellant and on search from him
were secured Rs.700/-, a T.T Pistol and black colour
shopper containing charas in shape of 02 slabs and 22
pieces, those were weighed to be 1170 grams, out of them 85 grams and 90 grams
of charas was sealed separately for purpose of
Chemical examination, while remaining charas was
sealed separately, a memo of arrest and recovery then was prepared at the spot
and then the appellant with the recovery so made from him was taken to police
station ‘B’ Section Sukkur, there he was book in the
present case formally. It was further stated by the complainant that he on
investigation recorded 161 Cr.P.C statements of the P.Ws
and then dispatched the sample of charas to Chemical
Examiner and after usual investigation submitted challan
of the case.
10. The
perusal of the report of Chemical Examiner reveals that the samples of chara were delivered to Chemical Examiner on 23.7.2015 with
delay of about eight days to its recovery. What was done with the samples charas for intervening period of eight days? No explanation
to it is offered by the prosecution.
11. In case of Ikramullah and others vs. The State (2015 SCMR 1002), it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that;
“The prosecution was not able to establish
that after alleged recovery of substance so recovered was either kept in safe
custody or that samples were taken from recovered substance had safely been
transmitted to office of Chemical Examiner without being tampered with or
replaced while in transit.”
12. Strange
enough no question was put to the appellant during
course of his examination u/s 342 Cr.P.C to have his
explanation on report of Chemical Examiner. In that situation, the report of
Chemical Examiner could hardly be used against the appellant.
13. In
case of Muhammad Ashfaq
versus The State (2014
P Cr.L J 1531), it has been held by Hon’ble Court that:-
“Section 342 Cr.P.C
– Effect- If any incriminating piece of evidence was not put to accused in his
statement recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C for his
explanation, then same could not be used against him
for his conviction.”
14. The omissions which are pointed
above are enough to make a conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to
prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.
15. In
case of Tarique Bashir vs.The
State (1995 SCMR 1345), it has been held by Hon’ble
Apex Court that;
“For giving benefit of doubt to an accused it
is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt- if a
simple circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt
of the accused, then he will be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of
grace and concession but as a matter of right.”
16. Above
are the reasons of short order dated 23.1.2019 whereby the instant appeal was
disposed of in the following term;
“Heard arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant and learned DPG. For the reasons to be recorded separately, this
appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence awarded to appellant Akber
Gadani under the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2018 passed by learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Narcotic Sukkur
in Special Case No.132/2015 arising out of Crime No.120/2015 P.S ‘B’ Section Sukkur is set
aside and the appellant is acquitted from the case. The appellant is in jail
and he is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other
criminal case.”
Judge
Judge
ARBROHI