The Sindh High Court (SHC) has set aside conviction of a man in a drug case observing that the prosecution failed to prove its case against him.
The appellant, Faraz Ahmed, was sentenced to life imprisonment by an additional district and sessions court for possessing 3700 grammes of methamphetamine (ice) on March 26, 2024. A division bench of the high court headed by Justice Omar Sial after hearing the arguments and perusal of the evidence observed that the prosecution witnesses were at odds over the quantity and packaging of the narcotics seized.
The bench observed that one prosecution witness, Police Constable Ali Gul, testified that “one shopper was in the hand of the accused, we checked the shopper which contained one another plastic shopper and it was wrapped in yellow tape.”
The high court observed that when the property was produced in court, three packets containing ice came out and the witness admitted that his statement under the Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) did not mention the third packet.
The SHC observed that according to another witness, Maalkhana incharge ASI Shahbaz Ahmed Khan, when the sealed parcel was given to him, it contained five packets as informed by the complainant. Moreover, the chemical analysts’ report showed that three packets were sent to the laboratory, but only two contained ice.
The SHC observed that the report was silent regarding what was in the third packet. The high court observed that the original Register XIX was not produced at the trial while an unattested copy of the Register XIX was produced, which was far from satisfactory, and it appeared that endorsements may have been added to it subsequently.
The SHC observed that this anomaly could have been clarified if the original register had been seen, which was not done. The bench observed that no reason was recorded by the trial court as to why secondary evidence was admitted in evidence while the road certificate was not produced at trial.
The high court observed that the evidence produced by the prosecution showed that the property was given to the investigation officer on March 27, 2024, but it reached the laboratory two days later on March 29.
The SHC noted that the investigation officer admitted that from the evening of March 28, 2024 till submission of the case property with the chemical examiner, no record showed who had its custody.
The high court observed that submission of the investigation officer was sufficient to break the chain of safekeeping and transmission. It added that it was now well settled that conviction could not be sustained if safe custody and transmission of the narcotics were not proved by the prosecution.
The SHC allowed the appeal by setting aside the trial court order and ordered acquittal of the appellant of the charge and his release, if he was not required in other cases.
