The case of Khaliq Dad and another v. The State (2024 P Cr. L J 678) from the Balochistan High Court centered on a narcotics possession charge under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellants were convicted by the trial court for possessing 2 kg of heroin and 25 kg of opium concealed in a car’s dashboard.
Key issues highlighted in the appellate judgment included:
- Contradictory Testimonies: There were significant discrepancies between the prosecution witnesses (PWs), particularly regarding the receipt of the recovery report (Murasila) and the arrival at the crime scene, which undermined the prosecution’s case.
- Failure to Produce Key Evidence: The prosecution did not present the unassembled dashboard showing the concealed narcotics, nor was it examined in court, leading to doubts about the recovery process.
- Chain of Custody Issues: The prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the narcotic samples, as required under the law. This broke the chain of custody, making the forensic analysis unreliable.
- Lack of Conscious Knowledge: For one of the accused, Basharatullah, the prosecution could not prove that he had knowledge of the narcotics concealed in the car, which was critical to his defense.
The High Court found that the trial court had misread the evidence and failed to appraise it properly. Consequently, the appellants were acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt, and the conviction was overturned.
The judgment draws upon previous case law, including State v. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039), emphasizing the importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for narcotics evidence.