PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 61
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, JJ.
Mst. SUMERA BIBI--Appellant
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 434 of 2022, decided on 26.4.2022.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997)--
---S. 9-C--Appellant is lady--Reduction of sentence--Appellant was apprehended while holding blue colour shopper in her right hand containing charas 1580-grams--Prosecution successfully established the case--Appellant is a lady and she has no criminal record--appellant has already served out about one year and nine months imprisonment out of her total substantive sentence of three years--While taking a lenient view, reduction of sentence to the period already served out by the appellant--Criminal appeal is dismissed and sentence of imprisonment is modified. [Para 2, 7 & 8] A, B & C
2021 SCMR 531; 2021 SCMR 109 ref.
Kh. Qaisar Butt, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Shahab, Deputy Prosecutor General for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26.4.2022.
Judgment
Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.--Mst. Sumera Bibi Accused/appellant faced trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan in case FIR No. 1120 dated 17.11.2020 under Section 9-C of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 registered at police station Mumtazabad, Multan, and on conclusion thereof, vide judgment dated 16.04.2022 he was convicted under Section 9-C of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs. 15000/-, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for forty five days, hence, the instant appeal against conviction.
2. According to the prosecution case on 17.11.2020 at about 10.15 p.m., on receiving spy information the police party headed by Muhammad KaleemUllah Sub-Inspector apprehended the accused/ appellant through lady Constable. She was found holding blue-coloured shopper in her right hand containing charas black brown colour which weighed 1580-grams, out of which 80-grams was separated for chemical analysis and ultimately report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was sent to Court and accused was charge sheeted, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. During trial the prosecution produced Muhammad Kaleem Ullah, Sub-Inspector (PW-1), Mst. Sania Akram 4333/LC (PW-2). Shoukat Ali T-ASI (PW-4) and Farooq Ahmad 357/C (PW-5), who both deposed about arrest of accused and recovery of narcotic substances from her, Sohail Akbar 1197/HC (PW-3) is the Moharrar and Muhammad Shaban Sub-Inspector appeared as CW-1. In documentary evidence the prosecution produced report of PFSA (Ex.PE) and closed its case. On close of prosecution case, the accused was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein, she denied the prosecution evidence, however, neither produced any evidence in defence nor opted to appear in the witness box within the meaning of Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. After conclusion of trial, above conviction and sentence was recorded against the accused/appellant.
4. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant initiated his arguments to question the legality of conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant on merits and by referring to certain portions from the statements of prosecution witnesses argued that the prosecution witnesses have contradicted each other, therefore, conviction/sentence is not sustainable, but when confronted that prosecution witnesses remained consistent on material aspects, there was nothing on the record as to why such witnesses would have deposed falsely to implicate the accused/appellant and the report of PFSA is also in the positive, the learned counsel came out with alternate prayer that since the accused/appellant is a lady, she has no past history of involvement in criminal cases, therefore, quantum of sentence may be reconsidered.
5. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the appeal rand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.
6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It has been noticed that accused/appellant was apprehended at the spot and 1580 grams of charas was recovered from her, out of total quantity of recovered substance 80 grams was separated and sealed into a parcel as sample and the remaining was also sealed into a separate parcel and on this aspect the prosecution witnesses (sic) shown consistency Furthermore, the report of PESA (sic) positive and after going through the statements of relevant prosecution witnesses, we have not been able to find anything from where it could be said that the chain of safe custody to the extent of sample parcel right from its recovery till delivery and receipt in the office of PFSA was broken and as regards the parcel containing remaining recovered narcotic, the defence never questioned its safe custody at any stage of the trial or even before this Court. In this view of the matter, we are convinced that the prosecution has been successful in establishing the charge against the accused/appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, conviction under Section 9-C of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 being unexceptionable, is upheld.
8. However, while considering the quantum of sentence, as argued by learned counsel the accused/appellant is a lady and further we have found nothing from the record to say that she has any criminal history to her discredit. Furthermore, out of her total substantial sentence of three years the accused/appellant has already served out about one year and nine months’ imprisonment, which period is considered sufficient to leave a lesson for a woman to reform herself. Therefore, while placing reliance on the case “Mst. Sughran and another versus The State (2021 SCMR 109) and “Zulfiqar alias Zulfa versus The State” (2021 SCMR 531), we take a lenient view and while considering the above referred aspects, we feel satisfied that reduction of sentence to the period already served out by the accused/appellant would serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the period the accused/ appellant has already undergone. The amount of fine and punishment in case of its default, as imposed by the learned trial Court, shall however, remain intact. This criminal appeal is dismissed with above modification in quantum of sentence. The file of the learned trial Court be sent back immediately and the case property, if any, shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
(M.A.B.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments