ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.---Chiragh Din alias Chiraghoo son of Muhammad Siddique, caste Qureshi aged 40 years, resident of Ward No.4, Mohallah Shah Gardez, Multan, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, dated the 13th July, 1991, whereby the appellant was convicted of the commission of offence of possessing 500 grams of heroin and was sentenced under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 (President's Order No.4 of 1979), to undergo imprisonment for life, suffer 30 stripes of whipping and pay a fine of Rs.5000.00 and in default of payment thereof to pass further simple imprisonment for 6 months. According to the prosecution version of the case the appellant was nabbed while standing in Sehgalwali Street at 12-30 a.m. On the 18th- October, 1989, by a police party headed by Majeed Muhammad Rana, Inspector of Police and Station House Officer, Police Station Kup, Multan, P.W.5. He was alleged to be holding in his right hand a plastic envelope containing 500 grams of heroin. Majeed Muhammad Rana drew a sample of a gram of heroin and made it as well as the remaining quantity of heroin recovered from the possession of the appellant into sealed parcels and took them in his possession vide the memorandum, Exh. PB which bears the attestation of Munir Hussain, Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Kup, Multan, P.W.4 and Abdul Qayyum Abbasi, another Sub-Inspector of police, who subsequently ceased to be a member of the police force and left abroad and, therefore, could not be examined. Majeed Muhammad Rana drafted the report of the incident, Exh.PA and on its basis case against the appellant was registered at Police Station Kup.
2. The sample was sent for analysis to the Chemical Examiner for the Punjab, Multan, who reported that it contained heroin. Exh. PD is the report of the Chemical Examiner in this behalf.
3. The appellant denied possession of heroin as alleged by the prosecution. He took up the stance that he had been apprehended by the police from the house of a friend of his where he was sleeping and recovery of heroin had been planted upon him. He gave evidence on oath and produced two witnesses in defence.
4. Majeed Muhammad Rana, P.W.5 and Munir Hussain, P.W.4, bore out the recovery of 500 grams of heroin from the possession of the appellant when he had been raided upon by the police party on the 18th October, 1989, at 12-30 a.m. These witnesses are not shown to bear any sort of hostility towards the appellant nor any malicious intent falsely involving him in the case. Their testimony, on the face of it, inspires confidence and has rightly been belied by the learned trial Court to determine the guilt of the appellant.
5. The evidence produced by the appellant in defence appears to be some what self-destructive.
When examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant said that he had been hauled up by the police from Mohallah Sootriwat from the house of friend of his where he had been living alongwith his family due to fear of the police which had been behind him and which was bent upon to enrope him in a false case. However, he produced evidence in defence to the effect that he had been apprehended from the house of his Phophi (father's sister) and not from the house of his friend as he had given out during the course of his examination referred to above. Again whereas Haji Muhammad, D.W.1, deposed that the appellant had been apprehended by the' police from the house of his Phophi situate in Mohallah Sootriwat the other defence witness, Muhammad Ramzan, D.W.2, testified that the appellant had been arrested from the house of his late brother, namely, Ilahu, from Mohallah Muhammadpura. Muhammad Ramzan, D.W.2, clarified that in the same house the appellant's Phophi had also been, living. Nevertheless, he insisted that the appellant had been arrested from Mohallah Muhammadpura and not from Mohallah Sootriwat.
It is significant to note that Mohallah Muhammadpura and Mohallah Sootriwat are two different Mohallahs of Multan. Such an unsatisfactory piece of defence evidence certainly does not help the appellant in advancing his case.
6. In view of what has been said above the finding of the learned trial Court touching the guilt of the appellant and his consequent conviction cannot but be upheld. However, we find that the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed upon the appellant is rather on the high side. Accordingly we reduce it to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment; sentence of 30 stripes of whipping and fine of Rs.5,000 awarded by the learned trial Court are kept intact. As already directed by the learned trial Court the appellant will enjoy benefit of the provisions of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purposes of adjustment of the period of his detention during trial of the case against the term of sentence of imprisonment. With the aforesaid reduction in the sentence of imprisonment the appeal stands dismissed.