Ms. Musarrat Hilali, J.--Appellant Akmal stands convicted u/S. 9(c) CNSA by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Peshawar vide judgment dated 5.7.2012 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs,50,000/- or in default thereof to undergo four months S.I. With benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. According to the contents of FIR, the local police were present on the spot where they intercepted a Suzuki Carry bearing registration No, LEB-3861/Peshawar, which was driven by appellant. Search of the Suzuki Carry led to the recovery of 40 KGs of chars, hence the case was registered against him.
3. After conclusion of investigation, challan was submitted against the appellant and he was charge sheeted to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. At the trial, in order to establish its case against the appellant, the prosecution examined produced six witnesses in all, whereafter statement of accused was recorded U/S. 342, Cr.P.C., wherein, he denied the charges and professed innocence, however, did not opt to be examined on oath or wished to produce evidence in defence as required u/S. 340 (2), Cr.P.C. The trial culminated in conviction and sentence of the appellant, as mentioned above, which he has questioned through the instant appeal.
5. Heard. In the instant case, allegation against the appellant is that the local police intercepted a Suzuki Carry bearing Registration No, LEB-3861/Peshawar driven by him from secret cavities of which 40 KGs of chars were recovered.
6. It is noted that the alleged recovery was effected on 30.6.2011 while the samples thereof were received by Forensic Science Laboratory on 10.4.2012 after about ten months. No explanation was furnished by the prosecution witnesses as to why the samples were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rawalpindi -on the same day. There is no evidence to the effect that during the said period where and with whom the samples were lying, therefore, in the circumstances the possibility of tampering with the same cannot be ruled out. Had any explanation been furnished, the matter would have been decided in the light thereof but in absence the Court cannot coin any of its own. A question arises whether in presence of FSL in this Province established on 11.7.1997, the police can validly send the case property to FSL at Punjab. The answer to this question has not been given by the prosecution in a convincing manner. Further, the case property does not contain FIR number or name of appellant. Again, the Suzuki Carry from secret cavities of which the contraband chars stands recovered was never produced before the trial Court to ascertain , whether the cavities made therein could contain such a huge quantity of narcotics or otherwise.
For conviction of accused, the prosecution has to prove its case through convincing and reliable evidence, which is missing in the instant matter. The lacunas noted above lead us to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to substantiate its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, hence the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in law on account of infirmity in the prosecution version, which makes the case doubtful, hence the impugned judgment requires reversal.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, this appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant, namely, Akbar s/o Ajmal Khan vide impugned judgment dated 5.7.2012, of the learned Additional Sessions. Judge-V, Peshawar, is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
' These are the detailed reasons for our short order of even date.