Syed Sakhi Hussain Bukhari, J.--This judgment shall dispose of Grl. Appeals Nos, 216 and 232/2001 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgments dated 31.7.2001 passed by learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur whereby appellants were convicted under Section 9-C of Control of Narcotic Substances xxxx Act, 1997 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life in case FIR No, 74/2000 registered at Police Station Saddar, Bahawalpur on 14.3.2000. They were also directed to pay Rs, 1,00,000/- each as fine.
3. The prosecution story as appearing from the testimony of Abdul Hameed, Inspector/SHO (PW. 4 in Appeal No, 216 and PW. 5 in Crl. A. No, 232/2001) is that on 14.3.2000 he was posted as SHO, Police Station Saddar and on the same day at about 8.30 p.m. he alongwith other police officials were present in Cheema Town near the residence of Master Muhammad Sharif (PW). Two persons riding on a motor cycle (Honda 125-CC) came there, he stopped them and they disclosed their names as Allah Ditta and Ghulam Farid. On the personal search of Allah Ditta he was found in possession of heroin weighing 700 grams. Out of heroin recovered one gram was separated for sample purposes and the same was taken into possession. On their personal search their N.I.Cs. were also recovered from their pockets which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.C. In the meanwhile residents of Mohallah, Dr. Muhammad Afzal, Jaffar Khan, Mumtaz Khan and Master Muhammad Sharif also came there and he started investigation in their presence. Allah Ditta accused disclosed that they were dealing in Narcotice since long and the same were lying in his residential room and he could get recover the same. On this Allah Ditta accused led to the recovery of charas weighing 4 Maund 20 Kg. and opium weighing 1 Maund. Out of said charas and opium he separated 10 grams each for sample purposes and took the same into possession. Then he interrogated Ghulam Farid, accused and in the presence of PWs he disclosed that he deals in Narcotics and could get recover opium from his residential room. He while in police custody led to the recovery of opium weighing 1 Maund (Ex. P.1) from the residential room of his house. He separated 10 grams from opium recovered from accused and made into seal parcels and took the same into possession vide memo Ex. P.A. in the presence of PWs. The accused further disclosed that there were other Narcotics, sale price, scale and weights and account book in the custody of Mst. Shamim. On this disclosure he associated Mst. Shamim in investigation. She produced keys of safe and opened the same lying in her residential-room and got recovered opium weighing 2 Kg. and Rs, 3,95,410/-, weight and scale from her almirah. He separated 10 grams from the opium recovered for sample purposes and took all articles into possession. He drafted complaint Ex. P.B. and sent the same to the police station for formal registration of case. He prepared site plan Ex. P.A/1, recorded statements of PWs and arrested the accused. After investigation he came back to the police station, handed over case property to `Moharie for safe custody in 'Mal Khana' and for onward transmission to the office of chemical examiner and after completion of investigation challaned the accused. The SHO prepared three, separate challans of Ghulam Farid, Allah Ditta and Mst. Shamim.
4. The accused appeared before trial Court and charge under Section 9-C of CNSA, 1997 was framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial whereupon prosecution evidence was recorded. Prosecution examined 5 witnesses in all to prove its case against Ghulam Farid and five witnesses to prove its case against Allah, Ditta. The ' prosecution also tendered in evidence report of chemical examiner. Thereafter accused were examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution and pleaded their innocence, Ghulam Farid examined DW. 1 Muhammad Aslam in his evidence. Allah Ditta also examined him as DW.
1. He stated that Ghulam Farid accused had divorced Mst. Saboo mother of Mst. Shamim, accused and they were not on visiting terms with each other. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 9-C of CNSA, 1997 and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life with fine as stated above. Hence, these appeals.
5. We have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. This case has peculiar features. The prosecution case is that on 14.3.2000, Allah Ditta appellant was found is possession of heroin weighing 700 grams. Also that thereafter he lead to the recovery of charas weighing 4 Maund 20 Kg. and opium weighing 1 Maund from his house. At the same time Ghulam Farid accused/appellant led to the recovery of opium weighing one Maund from his house. However, defence case is that they have been falsely implicated in this case and that at the relevant time a son in law of Muhammad Sharif, PW was ASI and he (Muhammad Sharif, PW) deposed against them to oblige Abdul Hameed, Inspector/SHO.
7. As mentioned above the allegation against the appellants (Ghulam Farid and Allah Ditta) is that huge quantity of charas and opium was recovered from them. The prosecution examined Master Muhammad Sharif as PW.1. (in Appeal No, 216/2001). He clearly stated that in his presence Allah Ditta led to the recovery of charas weighing four (4) Maund and twenty (20) Kg. and opium weighing one Maund from his residential room whereas Ghulam Farid accused led to the recovery of opium weighing one Maund from his room. Shafqat Ali, SI (PW. 2 in Crl. A. No, 216/2001) and PW. 1 in other appeal) is also recovery witness and he too has supported the prosecution version.
Likewise Abdul Hameed, Inspector/SHO made statement about the recovery of heroin, charas, opium and other article from the accused. All the aforesaid PWs. have fully supported the prosecution case. There is no material contradiction or discrepancy in their statements. Their statements are convincing and confidence inspiring and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same.
8. The most important aspect of the case is that at the time of recovery many respectable persons of the locality reached the spot and witnessed the recovery. As mentioned above prosecution examined Master Muhammad Sharif as PW in the case of Ghulam Farid and Dr. Muhammad Afzal as PW in the case of Allah Ditta. They clearly stated that opium, charas and other articles were recovered from the accused. They had no enmity with accused. The case of the accused/appellants is that a son in law of Muhammad Sharif was ASI at the relevant time, therefore he made statement against them to oblige the complainant (Abdul Hameed, SHO).
However this story is not plausible. The appellants have failed to explain as to why Dr. Muhammad Afzal made statement against them. It is pertinent to note that they have not produced any evidence in support of their version.
9. The other important aspect of the case is that Allah Ditta was found in possession of 700 grams heroin. Thereafter charas weighing four (4) Maund 20 Kg. and opium weighing one Maund were recovered from him. Likewise opium weighing one Maund was recovered at the instance of Ghulam Farid, appellant. It was not possible for the complainant to plant such huge quantity of opium and charas. The case of the appellants is that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
However they have not produced any evidence in support of their version. Muhammad Aslam, DW.1 made statement about divorce of Mst. Saboo. As such is statement has no value. Even otherwise defence version is not plausible. As mentioned above huge quantity of opium and charas was recovered from the appellants and it shows that now they (appellants) have concocted a false story only to save their skin. In the circumstances of the case, we find that defence version is not plausible. It is after thought and the same is accordingly rejected.
10. It is clear from the material available on record that prosecution has proved its case against accused/appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. As such learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. The conclusion drawn and reasons advanced by learned Addl.
Sessions Judge show fair evaluation of evidence which is in accordance with settled principles in criminal cases. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, therefore there is no justification to set aside the same.
11.The upshot of the above discussions is that these appeals have no force and the same are accordingly dismissed. The perusal of impugned judgments shows that learned trial Court has not mentioned the sentence to be suffered by the appellants in case of default of payment of fine. As such it is directed that in case of default of payment of fine the appellants would further suffer 4 years R.I. each.