' MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---Fakher Zaman, appellant herein, was found in possession of 82.600 kilograms of 'Charas Garda' and 7 kilograms of 'Charas Pukhta'. A case under section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was registered against him vide F.I.R. No,23, dated 5- 4-2009 in Police Station Anti-Narcotics Force, Peshawar. After his arrest and completion of investigation, he was sent to the Court of learned Special Judge (CNS), Peshawar for trial, who, on its conclusion, convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,50,000 or in default, to further undergo six months S.I vide judgment dated 17-5-2010. Hence, this appeal.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in the first instance by referring to a few minor discrepancies in the evidence tried to canvass for outright acquittal of the appellant but when he sensed that he is n't on so strong a wicket, he straightaway asked for reduction in sentence as the appellant is a chronic patient of Hepatitis-C and in this regard he produced his medical reports.
3. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State by highlighting the salient features of the case argued that the witnesses, examined by the prosecution, have consistently charged the appellant; that in the absence of any discrepancy in their evidence, charge against him stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt and that the finding of the learned Trial Court being based on proper appraisal of evidence merits no interference. However, he, in view of the medical condition of the appellant couldn't resist his prayer for the reduction in sentence.
4. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as five witnesses. All of them gave a vivid account of the occurrence in the Court. There is no .Discrepancy in the statements of any of the witnesses as could create doubt in the prosecution version, notwithstanding, all of them were subjected to a searching cross-examination. There is also nothing on the record as could even remotely suggest that the incriminating substance was either planted or the appellant was falsely charged. When, this being the position, we have no doubt in our mind as to the guilt of the appellant.
6. Now comes the question of quantum of sentence. The appellant, a young man was sentenced to life imprisonment and, admittedly, he besides being a patient of Hepatitis-C is also a first offender having no history of being involved in narcotics cases and, as per material available on the record, he just appears to be a carrier. His role and conduct in the circumstances would call for lesser punishment. The sentence of ten years, in the circumstances, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments, rendered in the cases of Gul Raeef Khan v. State (2008 SCMR 865); Muhammad Tariq v. State (2009 SCMR 1220) and Mudassir v.
State (2012 YLR (Penh.) 463).
7. For the reasons discussed above, we, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, reduce his sentence from Life Imprisonment to Ten years R.I. By leaving the fine and benefit of section 382- B, of the Cr.P.C., intact. However, by keeping in mind the medical condition of the appellant, the Jail authorities as well as Medical Officer, Jail are directed to take his extra care and, if need be, he be periodically, shifted to the hospital for medical treatment. With the modifications detailed above, this appeal stands disposed of.
Sentence reduced