' SHAHJI RAHMAN KHAN, J.--- This Criminal Appeal No,447 of 2007 is directed against the judgment, dated 4-6-2007 passed by the learned Judge Special Court (C.N.S.) Peshawar whereby appellant Yousaf son of Yaqoob resident of Deh Bala Nangarhar Jalal Abad Afghanistan was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five hundred thousand) or in default to undergo two years simple imprisonment. However, the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to him.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11-9-2005 Inspector Tajmeen Ali (P.W.5) on prior information that Yousaf will smuggle huge quantity of heroin in padded quilt (Toshak) from tribal area in a Bus to Karachi. He started surveillance and at 1600 hours Bus No,8399 reached the venue and was stopped for its checking and it was found that there were quilts, pillows and bed pillows in the shape of bundles in suspected condition on the roof of the bus. The conductor was asked about its ownership who pointed the appellant amongst the passengers to be the owner of these articles.
Therefore, he along with 6 quilts and 6 pillows was brought down from the bus and detail checking was carried out which resulted in recovery of two packets of heroin from each quilt totalling 12 packets of heroin from quilts and 3 packets of chemical from the pillows. The twelve packets of heroin were weighed each packet contained one Kg. Of heroin while the weight of brown packet chemical was found 500 grams, of white packet 370 grams and of dark brown packet 320 grams.
He separated one gram each from the heroin and prepared 12 parcels of sample, likewise from each 3 packets of chemical he separated a sample of one gram which were sealed in the separate parcels while rest of the stuff was sealed into separate parcels and he also took into possession the personal belongings of the appellant vide recovery memo. Exh.P.W.5/1. He then drafted Murasila Exh.P.W.5/2 and sent it to the police station wherein Manzoor Khan Moharrir (P.W.1) on the basis of Murasila the case F.I.R. No,16,. Dated 11-9-2005 under section 9(c), C.N.S.A. Was registered against the appellant vide Exh.P.W.1/1. He also prepared card of arrest of the appellant Exh.P.W.5/3 and recorded statement of the P.Ws. He scribed applications Exh.P.W.5/4 and Exh.P.W.5/5 for chemical analysis by the F.S.L. And on receipt of the report of the F.S.L. Placed the same on the file as Exh.P.W.5/6 and Exh.P.W.5/7. The appellant disclosed the name of his partners namely Ibrahim son of Malook resident of Nangarhar Afghanistan and Roohullah alias Roohl Khan resident Ghani Khel Afghanistan presently resident of Jamrud Khyber Agency. After completion of necessary investigation, complete challan was submitted in the trial Court against the appellant for trial, where the copies of relevant documents as required under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Were supplied to him. The charge was accordingly framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution in order to prove the charge and substantiate the allegation levelled against the appellant produced six witnesses at the trial. Summary of the prosecution evidence for just and proper appraisal is reproduced as under:--- Manzoor Khan (P.W.1) on receipt of Murasila had registered the case against the appellant. Vide F.I.R. Exh.P.W.1/1. Shafiullah (P.W.2) had duly delivered the parcel of sample to the F.S.L. Laboratory, Peshawar. Azhar Rahman (P.W.3) had taken 15 parcels of sample on 13-9-2005 from the police station to the F.S.L. Laboratory Rawalpindi. Salim Khan (P.W.4) was performing as conductor in Bus No, DR-8399 who has stated that on the day of occurrence they had started from Samar Bagh Bunair for Karachi and were on the way at Ring Road Peshawar while a person signaled them to stop, he wanted to board the bus being passenger of Karachi and so at the payment of Rs,450 fare, he was boarded into the bus and was made to sit at seat No,18, he was having luggage, which he had placed on the roof of the bus. However, when they reached near Collective Check Post Kohat on the Highway the A.N.F. Personnel stopped the bus for the purpose of checking, the luggage lying on the roof of the bus belonging to the appellant was found suspected and so they inquired about its owner from him. He disclosed the appellant's seat No,18 among the passengers and he was brought down from the bus and his luggage was searched, 13 packets of heroin were recovered from the same in his presence. He has stated that the Investigating Officer thereafter left free the vehicle, however, the witness was made to stop and was examined by the Investigating Officer and he was also got examined by a Judicial Magistrate. He also had exhibited the ticket issued to the appellant to be Exh.P.W.4/1.
' Tajmin Ali A.D. A.N.F. (P.W.5) disclosed that Muhammad Iqbal A.D. A.N.F. Had conveyed him the information with regard to the smuggling of narcotics by a person namely Yousaf from tribal area through a bus booked for Karachi. Therefore, he made the surveillance and the relevant Bus No,DR- 8399 came there at the scene at about 1600 hours which was stopped and checked by them and accordingly 12 packets heroin were recovered out of 6 bedding. Similarly 3 packets chemical inside the pillow were also recovered. The 12 packets of heroin weighed 12 Kgs. While the packet of brown chemical was 500 grams, white 370 grams and dark brown chemical 320 grams. The details of investigation made by Tajmin Ali (P.W.5) is already mentioned in paragraph 2 of this judgment.
Murtaza Khan H.C. A.N.F. (P.W.6) has supported the ocular version as furnished by Tajmin Ali (P.W.5).
4. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. And the entire incriminating circumstances appeared against him were put to him in order to get his explanation about the same but he denied the charge and professed innocence and opted not to record his statement on oath in terms of section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And did not produce evidence in defence. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and appraising the evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant in terms above stated. Feeling dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence the appellant has come to this Court by way of the instant appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued with vehemence that there is no evidence against the appellant to connect him with the offence and that he has been implicated in a concocted case on the flimsy, doubtful and incredible evidence. That the prosecution case is full of material contradictions, grave discrepancies and because of lack of disinterested witnesses no reliance can be placed on the said evidence and the judgment based on surmises and conjectures is the result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence available on record. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and on acceptance of his appeal, he be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
6. As against that, the learned counsel appearing for the State(A. N. F.) supported the impugned judgment and submitted that huge quantity of heroin was recovered from the appellant and the plea of the defence being an afterthought albeit not proved by recording statement on oath or producing evidence in defence, therefore, the appeal being devoid of merits and substance be dismissed and the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court be upheld.
7. We have anxiously considered the comprehensive arguments of the learned counsel. For the parties and have meticulously analyzed the material available on the record.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the recovery of -12 kilograms heroin and 1190 grams chemical was not effected from the appellant is belied by the statement of Tajmin Khan Inspector (P.W.5) Murtaza Khan (P.W.6) and Salim Khan (P.W.4). The latter being the conductor of the bus had claimed that at the relevant time he disclosed the appellant to Tajmin Khan (P.W.5) to be the owner of the quilts and pillows wherefrom a huge quantity of narcotics was recovered , in presence of the witnesses and taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo. Exh.P.W.5/1. Similarly, the arrest card Exh.P.W.5/3 of the appellant was prepared by P.W.5. The learned trial Court while appraising the evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses has held that the witnesses in their deposition have given a straightforward and confidence-inspiring evidence and the defence despite of lengthy cross-examination has failed to shatter their credibility in any way; that the appellant was arrested on the spot along with the contraband heroin and as per 12 packets of sample report of Chemical Examiner Government of Punjab Exh.P.W.5/6 was found to be heroin and per report Exh.P.W.5/7 the brown and dark brown powder was also found to be heroin. The contradictions in the statement of Salim Khan (P.W.4) are of no consequence because it has been observed that private P. Ws. Invariably make obliging concessions for fear of retribution at the hands of NARCO smugglers. Otherwise there is no contradiction in the prosecution case on material points of time and place of recovery, arrest of accused from the bus along with 12 Kgs. Of heroin.
9. We after having meticulously analyzed the evidence found no material discrepancy in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the appellant has not alleged any or grudge of the A.N.F. Officials for his false involvement. The well-reasoned findings of the learned trial Court holding the appellant guilty of the charge are not open to any exception. Neither such huge quantity of heroin can be planted by the prosecution against the appellant nor material contradiction or discrepancy has been brought out from the record to shatter the credibility of the prosecution evidence. The prosecution witnesses have fully supported and corroborated its case with the confidence-inspiring evidence and the appellant has miserably failed to prove his defence plea by producing evidence worth the name in support of his defence plea. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the well-reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court.
10. For what has been discussed above, finding no merit or substance in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.