The Supreme Court of Pakistan has laid down an important legal principle in a narcotics case, ruling that a complainant police officer acting as the investigating officer in the same case is against the requirements of transparent justice and a fair trial.
Pointing out serious flaws in the evidence and investigation process, the court acquitted two accused persons who had earlier been sentenced to life imprisonment.
According to the detailed written judgment released for reporting, a three-member bench headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail issued the verdict, strongly discouraging the dual role of complainant and investigating officer in narcotics cases.
The judgment stated that a complainant is naturally inclined towards securing the conviction of the accused, making an impartial investigation impossible in such circumstances. The apex court observed that conducting an open-minded investigation into one’s own registered FIR was nearly impossible, as the complainant acting as investigating officer would tend to search only for material supporting the allegations, which is harmful to the administration of justice.
The court further held that if a complainant is appointed as the investigating officer in a case, solid reasons for such an appointment must be provided; otherwise, the prosecution’s case becomes weak. The judgment emphasized that transparent, impartial and lawful investigation is a requirement of every accused person’s fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court also raised serious questions regarding the investigation process, evidence and forensic procedures. It observed that the signatures of the recovery witness on the parcels produced before the court were not clear, while the prosecution failed to establish that the material presented before the court was the same as that allegedly recovered from the accused.
The judgment further described the chain of custody of the case property and the process of its transfer to the laboratory as doubtful. The court reiterated that under criminal law, even the slightest doubt must benefit the accused, but the lower courts had failed to properly appreciate the evidence.
The Supreme Court subsequently set aside the judgments of the trial court and the high court and ordered the acquittal of both accused persons.