Criminal Appeal 52/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana

Sindh High Court · 2017 · Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar

they saw and identified him to be the same accused Karamullah, who after throwing his Motorcycle, ran away towards the agricultural field he succeeded in fleeing

side and after taking shelter of trees and canals,

plainant, they had also chased cceed and then they returned b

Since no private persons were

behind the accused to

away. Per com| ack on the

arrest him but could not su

point, where, Motorcycle was parked. available there, 4S such the complainant had associated PC Salman Ahmed and PC Amanullah and then opened side covers of the th from both sides of the

found four parcels of clo h of the Motorcycle, f Motorcycle, total five sealed

Motorcycle and

cycle. On further searc’

they had also found

Motor oth beneath the seat ©

all the five parcels of clo

Khaki colour envelop

one parcel of cl th and found one

parcels. They had opened shopper bag in each parcel, wherein, es were ning said envelopes, they found heroin in all the

available and on opé re of small in size and 0

five envelopes. Of them four we ne was big and each bag CO

ntained 500 grams of heroin,

on weighing small parcels,

fe} CamScanner

» %

pile big pare reel contained 1000 grams of heroln, total three k PA 4 ar

peroin, They had also checked the Motorcycle and nd found it with hout

registration number and its chasis and engin © were also crased,

Thereafter the compl plainant had Prepared such mashirn the same mashirs and ob ama fn front of tained their i signatures the reon, Then they

brought accused an d case Property to PS where he was boo ‘as booked in the

aforesaid case.

3. A . ue that FIR was lodged and whole quantity of heroin was sent for chemical analysis. According to the report in this regard, th presence of the respective Narcotic Substance (heroin) was proved a 4 ’ er completion of usual investigation, a final report/charge sheet was filed

against the accused, by showing him as absconder.

4. Learn ed counsel for the appellant submits that nothing incriminating article was recovered from the exclusive possession of the

appellant; however, per prosecution case at the time of alleged incident the appellant was intercepted by the police but he succeeded in making his escape good by throwing the alleged motorcycle which later was

found containing heroin powder in two cloth parcels from one side of

motorcycle and two parcels from another side. He next submits that the

d whether the appellant at the time of alleged

police have not disclose ted by making fires, even

as having any weapon or restric

incident w ss with sophisticated weapons did

then the police who was le not follow d him hence all these lacun'

eriors had cooked up instant ¢

as show the police in order to

to apprehen ase against the

take shield from the sup’ appellant which has no independent legs to stand upon. S, learned Counsel for the

5. Besides above all discrepancie

e appellant would be satisfied and will not

Jant has stated that th ntence awarded to him by

appel! the

press instant ap)

peal on merits, if the se

fe} CamScanner

0 \ ey

learned trial Co urt je reduc Uced to the imprisonm ent, which the a ppellant

has already undergone/serv ed,

6. Le arned Addi ition al Prosecutor General conced les to the

above request m ade by learned Counsel for th for the appellant 7, Ih | ave peruse i d the impugned judgment, so also the d ’ record.

Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…