LHC acquits convict amid scathing remarks for police

LAHORE:

The Lahore High Court (LHC) has pointed out significant procedural and investigative shortcomings by police officials that led to the acquittal of Muhammad Imran, a drug peddler convicted for possessing 19 kilogrammes of heroin.

The LHC's Multan Bench, in its detailed judgment, highlighted the prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence, resulting in the reversal of a life imprisonment sentence and a fine of Rs5 million imposed by the trial court.

The court noted that the police failed to establish that the initial complaint against the accused was prepared at the crime scene and dispatched immediately for the registration of the First Information Report (FIR).

Evidence suggested that key documentation, including the complaint, was created at the police station, undermining the authenticity of the recovery operation.

Three recovery witnesses—Sub-Inspector Hassan Iqbal, Constable Muhammad Irfan, and Constable Tariq Mehmood—presented conflicting accounts during the trial.

Crucial details, such as the make, model, or registration number of the vehicle allegedly used to transport the heroin, were entirely absent from the prosecution's case.

The lack of effort to trace the vehicle's ownership through its registration, chassis, or engine numbers further weakened the prosecution's claims.

This omission meant that no link between the accused and the vehicle carrying the narcotics could be established.

The court found significant contradictions among the witnesses.

Sub-Inspector Hassan Iqbal claimed that the accused attempted to flee from the crime scene but was apprehended. However, this detail was not corroborated by the other two witnesses.

Discrepancies were noted in the method of preparing heroin sample parcels, with witnesses providing differing accounts of whether a knife or a piece of paper was used.

A black bag presented as evidence during the trial bore markings from a different case, raising questions about its relevance.

Such contradictions, the court noted, rendered the prosecution's narrative unreliable. The division bench stated that these inconsistencies and omissions fell within the broad scope of "contradictions" that undermine the credibility of witness testimony.

The court criticised the investigative team for not adhering to standard procedures. It noted that the recovered narcotics, the vehicle and other seized items were not formally exhibited during the trial.