Rawan Gull VS The State etc.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2025

Rawan Gul and another Vs.

The State and another

Jail Appeal No. 43 of 2025

Hilal Khan Vs.

The State

Appellants by : M/s Waqar Ahmed and Naveed Akhtar Advocates.

State by : Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Tahir, Special Public Prosecutor

ANF.

Dates of Hearing : 30-09-2026.

SHAHRUKH ARJUMAND, J.- Through the titled appeals, the appellants [Rawan Gul and Hilal Khan] have assailed Judgment dated 31-5-2025 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (CNS- I), Islamabad (“Trial Court”) whereby appellant No. 1 [Rawan Gul] was convicted under Section 9(1) 3(e) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (“CNS Act”) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of Rs.8,00,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, further imprisonment for 01 year; while the appellant No. 2 [Hilal Khan] was convicted under Section 9(1) 3 (c) of the CNS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 09 years with fine of Rs.80,000/- and in case of non-

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 05 months. The benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to both convicts.

2.Precise case against the appellants, as structured in FIR, is that on 21.02.2024, complainant [Yasir Naseer, Inspector (PW-2)] along with other officials, was conducting routine patrolling and checking of narcotics near 26 Number Chungi, G.T. Road, Islamabad. At about 22:00 hours, a spy informer allegedly disclosed that two persons, namely Rawan Gul and Hilal Khan residents of Nowshera, would transport a large quantity of narcotics from Peshawar towards Punjab in a white Toyota Hilux Pickup bearing registration No. B-1302/Lower Dir. Acting upon the information, the complainant and the accompanying raiding party established a checkpoint near PSO Pump, 26 Number Chungi, and commenced surveillance. At about 22:30 hours, the aforesaid vehicle was intercepted while coming from the Peshawar side. The persons occupying the vehicle disclosed their identities as Rawan Gul (appellant No.1), who was driving the vehicle, and Hilal Khan (appellant No.2), who was seated in the front.

3.Appellant No. 2, during the course of search, pointed out two packets concealed beneath the mat of the front seat. Appellant no. 2 himself brought out 02 packets, wrapped in yellow insulation tape from beneath the mat of the front seat and handed over to Yasir Naseer Inspector (PW-2). The said 02 packets were checked and opened by Yasir Naseer Inspector with the help of cutter, Charas wrapped in polythene bag was found present. The recovered 02 packets of Charas were given serial No.01 to serial No.02 and weighed by Yasir Naseer Inspector at the spot along with packing material, which came out to be 1200/1200 grams each, total 2400 grams of Charas was recovered. 10/10 grams of Charas was separated from each packet of Charas for the purpose of chemical analysis and prepared sample parcels were given serial

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

No.01 to serial No.02 respectively, whereas remaining case property/packets of Charas were sealed in white cloth and prepared parcel of remaining case property given serial No.03. Sample parcel having serial No.1, serial No.2 and parcel of remaining case property of Charas having serial No.3 were sealed with seal stamp of "YN" and were taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PC attested by witnesses Muhammad Naveed Constable and Ghulam Murtaza Constable. Yasir Naseer Inspector identified his signature over recovery memo as Ex.PC/1.

4.Appellant No. 1, during investigation, after some hesitation made pointation of Charas in secret cavity adjacent to petrol tank in the body of the said vehicle. The secret cavity was checked and opened by Yasir Naseer Inspector (PW-2) with the help of tools, 22 packets wrapped in yellow insulation tape were recovered from the said secret cavity. The said 22 packets were checked and opened by Yasir Naseer Inspector with the help of cutter, Charas wrapped in polythene bags was found present. The recovered 22 packets of Charas were given serial No.04 to serial No.25 and weighed by Yasir Naseer Inspector at the spot along with packing material, which came out to be 1200/1200 grams each, total 26.400 kilograms of Charas: ten grams of Charas from each packet was separated for the purpose of chemical analysis and prepared sample parcels were given serial No.04 to serial No.25 respectively, whereas remaining case property/packets of Charas were sealed in plastic sack and prepared parcel of remaining case property, giving serial No.26. Sample parcels having serial No.04 to serial No.25 and parcel of remaining case property of Charas having serial No.26 were sealed with seal stamp of "YN" and were taken into possession along with vehicle Hilux bearing registration No.B-1302/Lower Dir and its key through recovery memo Ex.PD attested by witnesses Muhammad Naveed Constable (PW-3) and Ghulam Murtaza Constable. Yasir Naseer Inspector (PW-2) completed

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

all the recovery proceedings and jotted down the complaint Ex.PA and sent the same in original to police station through Muhammad Naveed Constable for registration of FIR. During further investigation, accused persons were found guilty. Pursuant to receipt of chemical analysis reports Ex.PH (01-02 pages) of appellant No. 2 and Ex.PJ (01-22 pages) of appellant No. 1, from NIH Islamabad, Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court.

5.After submission of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. formal charge was framed against the appellants but they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to substantiate allegations levelled in the FIR produced as many as five witnesses. A gist of the prosecution witnesses is reproduced below for ready reference and proper analysis.

I. Mr. Arshad Mehmood Janjua ASI appeared as PW-1, who testified that on 22.02.2024, while on duty at PS ANF North, Rawalpindi, he received a complaint from Yasir Naseer Janjua Inspector ( PW-2) through Muhammad Naveed Constable (PW-3). PW-1 recorded FIR No.46 of 2024, marked as Ex.PB, in his own handwriting and affixed his signature to it, as evidenced by Ex.PB/1 and Ex.PB/2. Following the FIR registration, he prepared a report on the original complaint, which was marked as Ex.PA/1. He then provided Muhammad Naveed Constable with the carbon copy of the FIR and the original reported complaint, who in turn delivered them to Yasir Naseer Inspector for further investigation.

II. Yasir Naseer (Inspector) appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and deposed that: On 21.02.2024, 1 along with Muhammad Naveed Constable, Ghulam Murtaza Constable, Arslan Akbar Constable boarded in official vehicle bearing registration No. RIG-1177, driven by Sheraz Nazeer Driver were on routine patrolling and checking of narcotics near 26 number Chungi G.T Road, Islamabad. At about 22:00 bours, spy informer came and provided information to me that narcotics smugglers namely Rawan Gul and Hilal Khan, resident of Naushehra will smuggle huge quantity of narcotics concealed in their vehicle Toyota Hilux Pick up white in colour bearing registration No.B. 1302/Lower Dir from Peshawar into Interior Punjab and will pass through the informed place 26 number Chungi G.T Road, Islamabad after sometime. Upon the said information, I along with the accompanied raiding party and spy informer established check point near PSO Pump 26 number

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

Chungi G.T Road, Islamabad and started strict surveillance upon vehicles Toyota Hilux Pickups. At about 22:30 hours, the informed vehicle Toyota Hilux Pick up white in colour bearing registration No.B-1302/l.ower Dir was seen coming from Peshawar side, wherein two persons were boarded. The said vehicle was signalled to stop by me with the help of ANF officials and upon the pointation of accompanied informer at the spot. Both the persons sitting in the said vehicle were overpowered by me and upon asking their names and address, the driver of the said vehicle disclosed his name as Rawan Gul son of Wadan Shah, resident of Pabbi Tehsil and District Naushehra, whereas the front seater disclosed his name as Hilal Khan son of Noor Khan, resident of Pabbi Tehsil and District Naushehra. During cursory investigation after some hesitation, accused Hilal Khan disclosed presence of narcotics near his feet beneath the mat of the front seat of the said vehicle and himself brought out 02 packets, wrapped in yellow insulation tape from beneath the mat of the front seat and handed over to me. The said 02 packets was checked and opened by me with the help of cutter, Charas wrapped in polythene bag was found present. The recovered 02 packets of Charas were given serial No.01 to serial No.02 and weighed by me at the spot along with packing material, which came out to be 1200/1200 grams each, total 2400 grams of Charas was recovered. 10/10 grams of Charas was separated from each packet of Charas for the purpose of chemical analysis and prepared sample parcels were given serial Nos.01 to serial No.02 respectively. whereas remaining case property/packets of Charas was sealed in white cloth and prepared parcel of remaining case property given serial No.03. Sample parcel having serial No.1, serial No.2 and parcel of remaining case property of Charas having serial No.3 were sealed with seal stamp having description of "YN" and were taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.PC attested by witnesses Muhammad Naveed Constable and Ghulam Murtaza Constable I identify my (CNgnature over recovery memo as Ex.PC/1. During cursery driving seat, he after some hesitation he made pointation of Charas in secret cavity made adjacent to petrol tank in the body of the said vehicle. The secret cavity was checked and opened by me with the help of tools, 22 packets wrapped in yellow insulation tape were recovered from the said secret cavity. The said 22 packets were checked and opened by me with the help of cutter, Charas wrapped in polythene bags was found present. The recovered 22 packets of Charas were given serial No.04 to serial No.25 and weighed by me at the spot along with packing material, which came out to be 1200/1200 grams each, total 26.400 kilograms of Charas. 10/10 grams of Charas was separated from each packet of Charas for the purpose of chemical analysis and prepared sample parcels were given serial Nos.04 to serial No.25 respectively, whereas remaining case property/packets of Charas were sealed in plastic sack/torra and prepared parcel of remaining case property given serial No.26. Sample parcel having serial No.04 to serial No.25 and. parcel of remaining case property of Charas having serial No.26 were

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

sealed with seal stamp having description of "YN" and were taken into possession along with vehicle Hilux bearing registration No.B- 1302/Lower Dir and its key through recovery memo Ex.PD attested by witnesses Muhammad Naveed Constable and Ghulam Murtaza Constable. I identify my signature over recovery memo as Ex.PD/1. The said vehicle was further checked by me, no other incriminating material was found. I produce parcel of remaining case property of Charas having serial No.03 of accused Hilal Khan as Article P- 1 (containing 02 packets of Charas). I also produce parcel of remaining case property of Charas having serial No.26 of accused Rawan Gul as Article P-2 (containing 22 packets of Charas), vehicle Toyota Hilux bearing registration No.B-1302/Lower Dir as Article P-3 and its key as Article P-4. (At this juncture upon the request of learned SPP, parcel Article P-1 serial No.03, parcel Article P-2 serial No.26 having complete details qua recovery were opened). I produce before the court 02 packets of Charas as Article P-5, Article P-6 of accused Hilal Khan, whereas 22 packets of Charas as Article P-7 to Article P-28, respectively of accused Rawan Gul. (All the two parcels opened in the court were re-sealed with stamp of the court). (All the 24 packets contained serial numbers and were found packed in yellow insulation tape). During personal search of accused Hilal Khan, his original CNIC in the name of accused as Article P-29, mobile phone Nokia along with sim as Article P-30, Pakistani Currency Rs.500/- as Article P-31, purse as Article P-32 and miscellaneous visiting cards as Article P-33 were recovered and taken into possession through personal search memo of accused as Ex.PE attested by witnesses Muhammad Naveed Constable and Ghulam Murtaza Constable. I identify my signature over personal search memo of accused Hilal Khan as Ex.PE/1 produced before the court as the same. During personal search of accused Rawan Gul, his original CNIC in the name of accused as Article P-34, mobile phone along with sim as Article P-35, Pakistani Currency Rs.1000/- as Article P-36, registration book of vehicle bearing registration No.B-1302 as Article P-37, purse as Article P-38 and miscellaneous visiting cards as Article P-39 were recovered and taken into possession through personal search memo of accused as Ex.PF attested by witnesses Muhammad Naveed Constable and Ghulam Murtaza Constable. I identify my signature over personal search memo of accused Rawan Gul as Ex.PF/I produced before the court as the same. Complaint was jomed down and sent to police station ANF RD North Rawalpindi through Muhammad Naveed Constable for registration of FIR. I identify my signature over complaint already produced before the court as Ex.PA and my signature on complaint as Ex.PA/2. During investigation of the case, statement of witness Ghulam Murtaza Constable under section 161 Cr.P.C was reduced into writing. I also conducted cursory investigation at the spot. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Naveed Constable brought copy of FIR and original reported complaint to the place of occurrence. I also prepared unscaled site plan Ex.PG. I identify my signature over unscaled site plan as Ex.PG/1. I completed headnotes over the

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

relevant documents, parcels and formally arrested the accused persons and issued information slips. I recorded statement under section 161 Cr.P.C of Muhammad Naveed Constable. I along with other ANF officials, case properties, Vehicle Toyota Hilux bearing registration No.B-1302/Lower Dir and accused persons proceeded towards police station ANF RD North Rawalpindi. After arrival at the police station, accused persons were confined in the lock-up, ease properties, Toyota Hilux bearing registration No.B. 1302/Lower Dir and articles of personal search according to memos were handed over to Moharrar Maalichana Amir Shahzad ASI and the Toyota Hilux bearing registration No.B-1302/Lower Dir was got parked in "MT" of the police station. Statements of Moharrar Maalkhana Amir Shahzad ASI and Duty officer Arshad Mehmood Janjua ASI were reduced into writing under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 23.02.2024, accused persons were produced before the concerned Magistrate, who sent them to Central Prison Adyala Rawalpindi on judicial remand. On the same day le. 23.02.2024, sample parcels were sent to NIH Islamabad for chemical analysis through Muhammad Irshad Constable. Statements of Muhammad Irshad Constable and Moharrar Maalkhana Amir Shahzad ASI under section 161 Cr.P.C were reduced into writing. On the same day l.e. 23.02.2024, I got issued a letter through the Incharge of the police station to ETO concerned for verification of the seized Toyota Hilux bearing registration No.B-1302/Lower Dir. I also got issued a letter through Incharge of the police station for obtaining CDR of mobile phone number of the accused persons. A letter for obtaining criminal record was also issued through Incharge of the police station. Pursuant to chemical analysis reports Ex.PH (01-02 pages) of accused Hilal Khan and Ex.PJ (01-22 pages) of accused Rawan Gul from NIH Islamabad received were produced before the court along with report under section 173 Cr.P.C. Report under section 173 Cr.P.C was submitted before the court.

III. Muhammad Naveed Constable, appeared as PW-3 and gave a comprehensive report of narcotics interception operation near PSO Pump, 26 Number Chungi, G.T Road, Islamabad in which he, along with other ANF officials, seized a substantial amount of narcotics from appellants. He recounted the discovery of Charas, the sealing of parcels, and the apprehension of the accused individuals and other intricate aspects of the case. PW also described his role in taking away written complaint to the police station for registration of FIR and then delivering the copy of FIR and originally drafted complaint to Yasir Naseer Inspector at the crime scene.

IV. Muhammad Irshad Constable appeared as PW-4 who testified that on 23.02.2024, he was instructed by Yasir Naseer Inspector to collect sealed sample parcels of instant case from Amir Shahzad ASI for deposit at NIH, Islamabad. PW received various sealed parcels containing narcotics for transmission and confirmed that

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

they remained intact while in his custody. After delivering the parcels to NIH, Islamabad, he returned to the police station and reported back to the Moharrar Maalkhana.

V. Amir Shahzad ASI/ Moharrar Maalkhana, appeared as PW-5 and stated that Yasir Naseer Inspector gave him parcels of remaining case property and narcotics samples to store safely until they were handed over to Muhammad Irshad Constable for delivery to NIH, Islamabad. Yasir Naseer Inspector also handed over to him vehicle, which he got parked in "MT" of the police station, PW confirmed the integrity of the parcels during his custody and detailed the process of transferring them to Muhammad Irshad Constable. The prosecution on 13.05.2025, gave up Ghulam Murtaza Constable being surplus and made a request for closure of prosecution evidence.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of appellants as mandated under Section 342 Cr.P.C were reduced into writing, for the purpose of enabling the appellants to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them, wherein they denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. The appellants opted not to record statements on oath as envisaged under Section 340 (2) Cr.P.C as defense witness and also refused to produce any oral or written defense evidence.

7.Leaned Trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides decided the case and passed the Impugned Judgment whereby convicted and sentenced the appellants as described in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, these appeals.

8.Learned counsels for the appellants contended that the Impugned Judgment of conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is contrary to the law and evidence on record and was rendered in disregard of the applicable statutory requirements and settled judicial principles. They submitted that although the prosecution claimed that the police officials were on routine patrolling, neither Register No.2/Roznamcha was produced to

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

establish their departure from, or arrival at, the police station, nor was any reliable evidence furnished regarding their presence at the place of occurrence. All three material prosecution witnesses admitted that the colour, shape and texture of the alleged contraband were not mentioned, while the seizing officer further admitted that the complaint, recovery memo and his examination-in-chief contained no description of the material or pouch used for preparing the sample parcels, thereby creating doubt regarding their preparation at the spot. They further argued that the alleged parcels bore no identification/signatures of the recovery witnesses; the names of the persons signing the recovery memos were not mentioned; and the Investigating Officer failed to produce Register No.19 or any extract thereof to establish deposit and safe custody of the case property, while also admitting that the requisite signatures were not appended in the relevant columns. Likewise, the official who allegedly transported the sample to NIH Islamabad admitted that he had not signed the relevant columns of Registers Nos.19 and 21. Counsel contended that the alleged occurrence took place at night, yet no source of light was shown in the site plan or referred to by any witness; the CDR allegedly establishing the appellants’ presence at the place of occurrence and the video footage of the recovery proceedings were not produced; no independent witness from the vicinity was associated; the case particulars were not mentioned on each packet; the sample seal was not placed inside the remaining parcels; no disclosure memo was prepared at the spot; and the alleged packets were not completely de-wrapped. According to learned counsels, these omissions and admissions, viewed cumulatively, cast serious doubt upon the recovery, preparation, safe custody and transmission of the alleged narcotic substance and render the chain of custody unreliable. They submitted that the prosecution cannot derive benefit merely from the absence of contradictions in the statements of its witnesses, as it was independently required to prove its case through cogent, confidence-inspiring and legally

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

reliable evidence. Reliance was placed upon Minhaj Khan v. The State (2019 SCMR 326) regarding material contradictions and omissions, and Ahmed Ali v. The State (2023 SCMR 781) for the principle that where the consequences of conviction are severe, the standard of proof must correspondingly be strict. Learned counsel maintained that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt; that even a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to its benefit as of right; and that, when the entire evidence is examined cumulatively, the numerous procedural lapses, omissions and inconsistencies create more than a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. They therefore, prayed that the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants be set aside and they be acquitted of the charge. Learned counsel for appellant No. 2 in support of his contentions also relied upon Tariq Sajjad Khan vs. The State and others, (2026 SCMR 1215); and Gul Muhammad and 2 others vs. The State, (2026 SCMR 1395).

9.Leaned Special Public Prosecutor ANF controverted the contentions of the learned counsels for appellants and submitted that the Impugned Judgment is well reasoned and in accordance with law, therefore, it does not call for interference by this Court. He prayed for upholding the Impugned Judgment and dismissal of instant appeals.

10.We have heard the learned counsels for appellants as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor ANF and have also examined the record with their able assistance.

11.We have carefully considered the respective submissions and examined the evidence available on record. The prime question requiring determination is whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing, through legally admissible and confidence-inspiring evidence, the recovery of 26.400

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

kilograms of charas from appellant No.1 and 2.400 kilograms of charas from appellant No.2, together with an unbroken chain of custody of the recovered substance?

12.The prosecution case regarding the actual recovery rests primarily upon PW-2 Yasir Naseer Inspector and PW-3 Muhammad Naveed Constable. Both witnesses were members of the raiding party and had direct knowledge of the interception and recovery proceedings. Their testimony is materially consistent on the essential features of the occurrence, including the time and place of interception, the identity and respective positions of the appellants in the vehicle, the recovery of two packets from beneath the front-seat mat at the instance of appellant No.2, and the subsequent recovery of 22 packets from the concealed cavity of the vehicle at the instance of appellant No.1. Their account is further supported by the recovery memos, site plan, FIR and the evidence relating to preparation, custody and transmission of the samples.

13.The objections raised by the learned counsels for appellants regarding the non-production of Register No.2, absence of independent witnesses, non- availability of CCTV footage/CDRs, and the alleged failure to mention the colour, shape and texture of the narcotic substance essentially relate to matters of corroboration and procedural compliance. Such omissions, considered individually or collectively, do not by themselves discredit otherwise consistent ocular evidence unless they are shown to cause a material dent in the prosecution version or create a reasonable doubt regarding the factum of recovery. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that an omission or procedural irregularity is to be assessed in the context of the entire prosecution evidence and its impact upon the core question of recovery. In Tariq Sajjad Khan (Supra) while dealing with a narcotics case, the august Court reiterated that, having regard to the stringent

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

consequences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, the prosecution evidence must be cogent, convincing and confidence-inspiring, and material contradictions, discrepancies or omissions which create a genuine doubt cannot be ignored. Conversely, where such omissions do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case, they cannot, by themselves, justify rejection of otherwise reliable evidence. In the present case, the defence has not been able to demonstrate any material contradiction between the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 concerning the manner and place of recovery.

14.The contention that the recovery witnesses were official witnesses also does not render their testimony inadmissible or inherently suspect. There is no legal requirement that a recovery effected by an anti-narcotics agency must necessarily be witnessed by private persons. The evidentiary worth of official witnesses depends upon the quality and consistency of their testimony. In the present case, no previous enmity, ill-will or motive for false implication of either appellant has been brought on record. Their evidence, therefore, cannot be discarded merely because they are officials of the ANF. This approach finds direct support from the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Gul Muhammad and 2 others v. The State (2026 SCMR 1395), wherein, in a narcotics case involving recovery by police officials, it was reiterated that the testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded merely on account of their official status unless mala fide, bias or prior enmity is established. The same principle squarely applies here, particularly when the defence has not brought on record any circumstance suggesting animosity or a motive for false implication.

15.The argument advanced on behalf of appellant No.2 that it was improbable for him to keep two packets beneath the front-seat mat when a concealed cavity containing the remaining narcotics was available in the

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

vehicle has also been considered. The submission may raise a question of probability, but it cannot substitute the positive evidence of recovery. The prosecution witnesses specifically attributed the recovery of the two packets to appellant No.2, whereas the larger quantity was recovered from the concealed cavity at the instance of appellant No.1. The defence did not produce any evidence explaining the presence of appellant No.2 in the vehicle in a manner consistent with his plea of innocence. Mere absence of registration of the vehicle in the name of an accused is likewise not determinative, as possession of narcotics does not necessarily depend upon ownership of the vehicle in which the substance is recovered.

16.Significantly, the two appellants were not attributed identical recoveries. The prosecution case distinguishes their respective roles and quantities. From appellant No.2, 02 packets weighing 2.400 kilograms were recovered from beneath the front-seat mat, whereas 22 packets weighing 26.400 kilograms were recovered from the secret cavity of the vehicle at the instance of appellant No.1. The Trial Court, therefore, rightly assessed their respective liability according to the quantities attributed to each appellant instead of mechanically treating the entire recovery as being in joint possession.

17.The evidence concerning sampling and safe custody is equally material. PW-2 deposed regarding separation of samples from the recovered parcels and their sealing with the seal bearing the impression “YN”. PW-5 Amir Shahzad ASI, Moharrar Maalkhana, testified regarding receipt and safe custody of the case property, while PW-4 Muhammad Irshad Constable deposed regarding collection of the sealed samples and their transmission to NIH, Islamabad. The prosecution evidence establishes that the samples were transmitted on 23.02.2024 and were received at NIH on the same date. The

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

chemical examination reports Ex.PH and Ex.PJ further corroborate the identity of the substance as charas. The importance of proving the safe custody and transmission of narcotics cannot be disputed. However, the question is whether, on the evidence actually produced, the prosecution has established an unbroken link between the recovery and the samples examined. In the present case, PW-5 proved custody of the case property, PW-4 proved transmission of the sealed samples to NIH, and the chemical reports confirmed the nature of the recovered substance. Thus, unlike cases where the prosecution failed altogether to establish the custody or transmission of the samples, the necessary evidentiary link has been established in this case on the record.

18.The objections concerning Register No.19, Register No.21 and signatures in the relevant columns have been examined in the context of the entire evidence. The mere fact that certain documentary formalities were not proved in the precise manner suggested by the defence does not, in the circumstances of the present case, establish that the parcels were tampered with or that the samples examined by NIH were different from those drawn from the recovered substance. No evidence of substitution, tampering or break in the seals has been brought on record. Rather, the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5, read with the NIH reports, provides the necessary link between recovery, safe custody and chemical examination. The distinction between a mere deficiency in proving a particular documentary formality and a failure to establish safe custody is material. In Ahmed Ali and another v. The State (2023 SCMR 781), the Supreme Court extended benefit of doubt where the prosecution failed to produce the recovered narcotics and vehicle and thereby failed to establish the identity and existence of the case property. Likewise, the safe-custody jurisprudence requires the prosecution to establish the link between recovery, custody and transmission. In the present case, however,

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5, coupled with the contemporaneous recovery documents and positive chemical reports, establishes that link; no evidence of substitution, tampering or breakage of seals has been brought on record.

19.The contention regarding the absence of identification marks or signatures of witnesses on each individual packet also does not, in the facts of this case, furnish a sufficient basis for discarding the recovery. The recovery memos duly recorded the parcels and their respective serial numbers; samples were separately prepared and sealed; and the prosecution produced evidence regarding their subsequent custody and transmission. The defence has not identified any discrepancy between the description and number of parcels allegedly recovered at the spot and those subsequently transmitted for chemical examination.

20.The fact that the occurrence took place at about 10:30 p.m. also does not, by itself, make the recovery doubtful. The prosecution witnesses consistently placed the interception and recovery at the specified location near PSO Pump, 26 Number Chungi. The unscaled site plan supports the place of occurrence, while no effective challenge has been shown to have been made to the presence of the raiding party at the relevant spot. Similarly, non-production of CCTV footage or CDRs cannot be treated as destructive of the prosecution case where direct ocular evidence of recovery is otherwise available and has survived cross-examination. In Tariq Sajjad Khan (Supra) the august Court does not lay down that non-production of CCTV footage is invariably fatal; rather, its significance depends upon the circumstances of each case and whether the omitted material was capable of resolving a material contradiction or creating a genuine doubt in the prosecution version. In the present case, the prosecution case does not rest upon CCTV footage or CDRs; rather, the recovery was directly deposed to by the members of the

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

raiding party whose testimony remained consistent on the material particulars. The non-production of such additional corroborative material, therefore, does not by itself displace the direct evidence of recovery.

21.We are also not persuaded by the argument that the absence of fruits or vegetables in the vehicle supports the prosecution case or, conversely, that the defence version required independent corroboration. What is material is that the appellants themselves, in their statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution allegations but elected neither to appear as witnesses under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor to produce any defence evidence. Their failure to lead defence evidence cannot, of course, relieve the prosecution of its primary burden; nevertheless, once the prosecution evidence establishes the circumstances of recovery, the mere assertion of false implication does not create a reasonable doubt in the absence of some plausible explanation emerging from the record.

22.The prosecution has also produced evidence connecting the recovered substance with the chemical examination reports. PW-4 stated that he received the sealed sample parcels and delivered them to NIH, Islamabad, while PW-5 established their custody at the police station prior to transmission. The NIH reports, Ex.PH and Ex.PJ, corroborate that the samples examined were charas. There is no material discrepancy in the dates of recovery, deposit, transmission and receipt capable of breaking the chain of custody. Thus, the objection that the prosecution failed to establish safe custody and transmission is not borne out from the record. The governing principle is that the prosecution must establish a safe and secure chain from the point of recovery up to the laboratory examination; however, the chain is to be examined in the evidence as a whole and not by insisting upon one particular piece of documentary evidence in isolation. Where the evidence of

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

the officials responsible for custody and transmission remains consistent and the samples are received by the laboratory in sealed condition and produce a positive chemical report, an omission in a particular register does not automatically establish substitution or tampering.

23.The argument regarding non-complete opening of the packets is likewise of no assistance to the appellants. Samples were admittedly drawn from the recovered substance and were subjected to chemical examination. The positive reports of NIH corroborate the prosecution version regarding the nature of the recovered substance. The defence has not brought any material on record suggesting that the samples were not drawn from the recovered parcels or that the seals were compromised at any stage.

24.It is true that in a criminal case the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and that every reasonable doubt arising from the evidence must enure to the benefit of the accused. The principle that benefit of doubt is a right of the accused remains firmly settled. The Supreme Court in Ahmed Ali and another (Supra) reiterated that a single reasonable doubt arising from the prosecution evidence may be sufficient to entitle an accused to its benefit. The corollary, however, is equally important: the doubt must be reasonable and founded upon the evidence on record and not upon conjecture, hypothesis or a merely possible explanation. At the same time, a doubt must be reasonable and arise from the evidence, rather than from conjectural possibilities. On a cumulative appraisal of the evidence in the present case, the alleged omissions do not constitute such a doubt. The core prosecution evidence regarding interception, recovery, sampling, sealing, safe custody, transmission and chemical analysis remains intact.

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

25.The reliance placed by learned counsel upon Minhaj Khan v. The State (2019 SCMR 326), Ahmed Ali and another v. The State (2023 SCMR 781), Tariq Sajjad Khan v. The State and others (2026 SCMR 1215) and Gul Muhammad and 2 others v. The State (2026 SCMR 1395) has been duly considered. These authorities reiterate settled principles concerning proof beyond reasonable doubt, safe custody and transmission of narcotics, the effect of material contradictions and the evidentiary worth of official witnesses. None of these judgments, however, mandates acquittal merely because every procedural formality was not proved in the precise manner suggested by the defence. The determinative question remains whether the alleged deficiency creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. In Gul Muhammad (supra), the Supreme Court itself maintained the conviction where the recovery witnesses were official witnesses, their evidence was consistent and no malafide, bias or prior enmity had been established. Likewise, Tariq Sajjad Khan (supra) turned upon material circumstances which created serious doubt in the prosecution case. The factual matrix of the present case is materially different, as the recovery witnesses have remained consistent, the recovered substance was sampled and sealed, custody and transmission were proved through PW-4 and PW-5, and the chemical reports corroborate the prosecution version.

26.The record, therefore, establishes that appellant No.2 was found in the vehicle and, at his instance, two packets containing charas weighing 2.400 kilograms were recovered from beneath the front-seat mat. Likewise, at the instance of appellant No.1, 22 packets containing charas weighing 26.400 kilograms were recovered from the concealed cavity of the same vehicle. The recovery proceedings were witnessed by the prosecution witnesses, the recovered substance was sampled and sealed, the samples remained in

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

identified custody until their transmission to NIH, and the chemical reports confirmed the substance to be charas.

27.We are mindful that the mere presence of two persons in a vehicle does not, without more, justify fastening the entire recovery upon both of them. The Trial Court, however, did not proceed on such a premise. It separately assessed the recoveries attributed to the two appellants and convicted appellant No.1 for possession of 26.400 kilograms and appellant No.2 for possession of 2.400 kilograms. The evidence on record provides sufficient basis for this distinction.

28.In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. Its conclusion regarding recovery, identification of the recovered substance, and safe transmission of samples is supported by the testimony of PW-2 to PW-5 and the documentary and scientific evidence available on record. No misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence has been demonstrated before us warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.

29.Consequently, the prosecution succeeded in proving the charge against appellant No.1 Rawan Gul under Section 9(1)3(e) CNSA, 1997 in respect of 26.400 kilograms of charas, and against appellant No.2 Hilal Khan under Section 9(1)3(c) CNSA, 1997 in respect of 2.400 kilograms of charas, beyond reasonable doubt. The sentences awarded by the learned Trial Court, including the respective fines and benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C., therefore, call for no interference.

30.For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals are DISMISSED. The Impugned Judgment dated 31.05.2025 passed by the learned Judge,

Crl. Appeal No.72/2025.

Jail Appeal No.43/2025.

Special Court (CNS-I), Islamabad is maintained. The appellants shall serve the sentences awarded by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law.

(INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) (SHAHRUKH ARJUMAND)

JUDGE JUDGE

Announced in the open Court on 7th day of October, 2026.

JUDGE JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

Tanveer Ahmed/*