' MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---A Truck bearing No,K8624 Peshawar coming from TT was intercepted near Kamboh Adda Peshawar on 28-11-2007. It was subjected to thorough search which led to the recovery of 81.250 Kgs of charas pukhta, 31.250 of charas garda and 2.400 Kgs of opium. A case under section 9 C.N.S.A. Was registered against Maqbali Khan, Ismail Khan. And Ishfaq Ullah, appellants herein and Qaiser Khan, co-accused, vide F.I.R. No,76 dated 28-11-2007 in Police Station ANF Peshawar, as the former was driving the truck while the latter were sitting alongside him in the vehicle.
2. After their arrest and completion of the investigation, they were sent to the Court of the learned Judge, Special Court for trial who on its conclusion sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,2,00,000 each or in default to undergo two years' S.I. With the benefit of section 382-B of the Cr.P.C., and acquitted Qaiser Khan, co-accused, of the charge levelled against him, vide judgment dated 17-3-2010, hence Criminal Appeal No,257 of 2010 filed by Muhammad Ismail and two others and Criminal Appeal No,261 of 2010 filed by Muqbali Khan, which are disposed of by this single judgment.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No,257 of 2010, contended that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case, when they have got lift from the Driver from Ring Road, Peshawar and have no knowledge as to what was loaded in the truck and transported, they cannot be said to have conscious knowledge of the incriminating substance recovered therefrom. Conscious knowledge, the learned counsel added, cannot be imputed to the appellants when they boarded the truck from Ring Road. The learned counsel next contended that failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to collect the correct information to justify that the appellants were in the conscious knoWledge of the contrabands kept in the secret cavities of the vehicle is another circumstance which would militate against the truth of the Prosecution version. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No,261 of 2010 contended that the judgment delivered by the learned trial Court is not based on proper, just and legal appreciation of the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of their contentions placed reliance on the cases of Rehmatullah and another v. The State (2011 YLR 2477) and Shahzada v. The State (2010 SCM R 841).
4. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that the stance of the appellants that they have no conscious knowledge, of the incriminating substance recovered from the truck is belied by the surrounding circumstances and that the convictions and sentences being based on proper appraisal of evidence is not open to any exception. He added that despite stern and searching cross-examination of the F'.W, nothing came forth as could discredit their testimony and that absence -of any contradiction in their statements proves that they were natural and truthful in their account. The convictions and sentences, the learned counsel added, recorded on the strength of this evidence merits no interference. The learned State counsel placed reliance on the cases of Rahim Dad v. State 2002 PCr.LJ 1506 and Naeem Khan v. The State (2011 MLD Peshawar 626).
5. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. A perusal of the record would reveal that the Prosecution to prove its case produced as many as five P.Ws. P.W. I was Muharir Ishfaq Hussain, Police Station ANF Peshawar. P.W.2, Sardar Abdul Waheed, AD, P.S. ANF Peshawar, who effected the recovery of the contrabands from the truck in question in the presence of recovery witness P.W.3 Asmatullah, FC and other ANF officials whereas P.W.4 Muhammad Asif, constable who took murasila to Police Station for registration of the case and P.W.5, Matiur Rehman (HC, took the parcel of the contraband material to the FSL. A perusal of the evidence on the record would reveal that all the P.Ws. Remained consistent with regard to the recovery of the contrabands from the truck and the manner in which the recovery was effected. All the P.Ws., though, were subjected to a lengthy cross-examination but the defence failed to damage or destroy their testimony. The main defence of the learned counsel for the appellants remained throughout that all the accused had no conscious knowledge of the presence of the contrabands in the vehicle as the same were recovered from the secret cavities of the truck and were not visible but the defence plea of the appellants in the circumstances cannot be accepted for the reasons that two appellants, namely, Ismail Khan and Ishfaq Ullah, failed to justify their presence in the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle is normally fully aware of the goods available or loaded in the truck, unless, otherwise is established. Maqbali Khan, appellant, was on the driving seat at the relevant time and he also attempted to make good his escape by accelerating the vehicle. Driving licence from his 'personal possession was also recovered, so there was nothing to hold that the driver or the other two appellants sitting alongside the driver were unaware of the contrabands present in the vehicle. The defence also tried to make out a case that no description of appellant Ismail Khan and Ishfaq Ullah was made at the time of their arrest as to whether they were cleaners or spare drivers with the truck but this too make no room to create doubt in the involvement of the appellants in the commission of the offence, especially when the fact that all the accused are cousins inter-se and this very fact has not been shattered by the defence.
Similarly the other circumstances that the recovery was not witnessed by any private person in the circumstances of the case would also not be sufficient enough to doubt the recovery.
The defence plea of Ismail Khan had Ishfaq Ullah, appellants that they and just asked for a lift and boarded the truck would also not be appealing, when relation between them and overall situation in the' country would not allow a person to pick a stranger not known to him. Both the appellants have failed to justify their presence in the vehicle which alone would be sufficient to believe that they had a conscious knowledge of presence of narcotics in the secret cavities of the truck. It is unbelievable and even highly improbable that the appellants were not aware of the incriminating substance concealed therein. Apart from all this, where there is nothing on the record to show that the P.Ws. Deposing against the appellants had, any or ulterior motive, to falsely implicate them, their evidence cannot be looked askance at. Report of the Chemical Examiner supporting the version of the P.Ws. Also leaves no doubt as to the guilt of the appellants. We, thus, have no hesitation to hold that the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced them. The cases of Rehmatullah and another v. The State (2011 YLR 2477) and Shahzada v. The State (Supra) referred by the learned counsel for the appellants are not relevant to the case in hand because of their different facts and features. The cases of Rahim Dad v. State 2002 PCr.LJ 1506 and Naeem Khan v.
The State (Supra) can well be referred.
7. For the reasons discussed above, these Criminal Appeals being without substance are dismissed.