ABDUL LABBAR Versus STATE
Abdul Jabbar son of Niaz Muhammad, caste Malik Taili, aged 30 years, carpenter, resident of Mohallah Dharmpuram Mailsi, District Vehari, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Magistrate, invested with powers under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mailsi, dated the 11th May, 1992, convicting the appellant of the commission of offence of possessing 500 grams of heroin and sentencing him to four years' rigorous imprisonment, five stripes of whipping and a fine of Rs.5,000, failure to pay which was to entail sufferance of further rigorous imprisonment for a year. The appellant was given benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of adjustment of the period of his detention during trial of the case against the term of sentence of imprisonment.
2. The appellant was nabbed by the police party headed by Muhammad Abdullah, Sub‑Inspector of Police, Police Station Mailsi City, P.W.6, on the 21st February, 1991, at about 1‑00 p.m., while standing in a field of cauliflowers situate in Allah Rakha Colony, Mailsi. His personal search yielded 500 grams of heroin, Exh.P1, contained in an envelope which he was holding in his hand. Five 10 rupee currency notes, Exh.P2/1‑5 were recovered from the right side pocket of his shirt. Muhammad Abdullah extracted a sample of 11 grams from the stuff recovered from the possession of the appellant and made it into a sealed parcel. The remaining quantity of heroin was covered into another sealed packet. Both the sealed parcels alongwith five 10 rupee currency notes were taken in possession by Muhammad Abdullah vide the memorandum, Exh.PA, which bears the attestation of Abdul Ghafoor, constable, P.W.3, and Muhammad Iqbal, constable, P.W.5, who were members of the raiding party. Muhammad Abdullah drafted the report of the incident, Exh.PB, and on its basis case against the appellant was registered at Police Station Mailsi City.
3. The sample on analysis was found by the Chemical Examiner, Government of Punjab, Multan, vide his report, Exh.PE, to contain heroin.
4. The appellant denied possession of heroin and its recovery from him as alleged by the prosecution. He said in his examination by the Court that he had a quarrel with one Allah Rakha who was a Police Razakar and who had got him involved in the case by colluding with the police. He produced in his defence one Abdul Jabbar to vouchsafe his innocence though he declined to make statement on oath.
5. To establish the charge of possession of 500 grams of heroin against the appellant, Abdul Ghaffar, P.W.3, Muhammad Iqbal, P.W.5 and Muhammad Abdullah, P.W.6, testified on behalf of the prosecution: They stated with one voice that 500 grams of heroin had been recovered from the envelope which he was holding in his right hand when he was caught hold of. None of these prosecution witnesses has been shown to bear any hostility towards the appellant nor any motive for falsely implicating him in the case. The appellant did not elaborate the nature of dispute which he said he had with Allah Rakha. It is rather inconceivable that Allah Rakha could influence the police to the extent of making a case of recovery of such a substantial quantity of heroin as of 500 grams against the appellant without any basis. The evidence given by the prosecution witnesses is confidence inspiring and rings truth. It has rightly been believed by the learned trial Court to determine the guilt of the appellant. The appellant's conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is in order and is affirmed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment passed upon the appellant, in view of the quantity of heroin recovered from him, is rather on the high side and prays for its reduction in view of the fact that he was the only earning member of his family. The sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment is reduced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine and whipping is kept intact. With the aforesaid reduction in the sentence of imprisonment the appeal stands dismissed.
H.B.T./970/FSC Order accordingly.