P L D 1988 Federal Shariat Court 111 (PLP)

Faiz‑ur‑Rahman for the State. Date of hearing: 29th May, 1988. The appellant challenges through this appeal the order, dated 9th of March, 1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan (Mr. Aziz‑ur‑Rehman Khan), whereby he convicted him under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced him to two years' R.I., with whipping numbering ten stripes and fine of Rs.3,

000. In default of payment of fine he was to suffer t, months' R.I., further.

2. The occurrence took place on the 15th of May, 1987 at 9‑00 p.m. In Fort Qasim Bagh, Multan. Ghulam Sarwar, S.I., P.W.6, who was present in connection with his patrol duty alongwith a Head Constable and two Constables as also Muhammad Akhlaq, a Qaumi Razakar, P.W.5, received a secret information that a person was in possession of heroin at the Western Gate of that garden. The police party, therefore, went there, apprehended the appellant, searched his person and recovered from the right side pocket of his shirt, 11 grams of heroin. One gram was separated as sample to be sent to the Chemical Examiner. The two quantities were then sealed, and sent alongwith the complaint to the police station for formal registration of a case. The result of the Chemical Examiner Exh. P.D., is positive.

3. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case. Abdul Ghaffar, P.W.1, had recorded the first information report. Muhammad Saleem, Moharrir, Head Constable kept parcels in safe custody and sent the sample through Muhammad Akhtar, Foot Constable, P.W.3 to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The other three namely, Muhammad Iqbal P.W.4, Ghulam Sarwar, S.I., P.W.6 and Muhammad, Akhlaq, P.W.5, are the witnesses of raid, search and recovery.

4. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied the allegation against him and stated that as the two witnesses are the police officials and Muhammad Akhlaq a police tout and Razakar he' had been falsely implicated by them. He also appeared as his own witness and made a sworn statement. He deposed that he was going to Hussain Agahi from 'Ghanta Ghar' when the police party, who were in civilian clothes, apprehended him in, front of the Animal Husbandry Hospital. They searched his person but found nothing. In spite of that they insisted him to go with them to the police station but he resisted, on which tie was given beating and forcibly taken to the police station. He further stated that on the inquiry of the persons gathered at, the spot, the police had stated that he shall be let off at the police station. He also produced Farooq as D. W.1. who supported his version and stated that he had informed the members of his family about his arrest. His presence is, however, not shown in the statement of the appellant.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as Muhammad Akhlaq P.W.5, is a police tout and as the other two witnesses are police officials 'the version given by them cannot be accepted as correct. I am sorry I cannot accept this contention. The police officers who are also Muslims, if make a statement on oath, it has to be accepted, unless it is shown from the contents that they are telling lie or they have been declared as unreliable by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Even Muhammad Akhlaq has also not been proved as police tout. The fact that he has been named a witness in a number of cases, cannot permit us to presume that he is a liar, unless there is something to show that he was not speaking the truth and was falsely supporting the prosecution. The contention, that the quantity like 11 grams or 12 grams is always a fabrication, cannot be accepted as a rule, even if does appeal to mind, for, every case has to be decided on its merit and not surmises.

6. The learned counsel is not in a position to show a single contradiction from the statements of the three eye‑witnesses though they had been cross‑examined by a counsel. In this, view of the matter and for the reason that nothing had been said by any Court, against any of the prosecution witnesses, in any other case, as regards their veracity or reliability, I cannot condemn them just for the reason that they belong to the Police force. If they are telling lies in their sworn statements just to involve an innocent person they shall face a very torturous penalty in the Hereafter. On the other hand, if they are held to be liars, not only they will not be relied upon but they are not fit to be members of that force. So holding them liars means penalising them and this must be done with care and caution and for sufficient reasons.

7. The learned counsel then laid much stress on the defence version but even that account cannot be accepted, as the appellant never mentioned in his statement that Farooq D.W. was also present at the spot. From the statement of Abid it appears that he is known to the family and, therefore, to the appellant, as he went to his house to inform his family members about his arrest.

8. The result is that there is nothing on the record to justify interference in the order passed by the trial Court. This appeal thus has no merit and is dismissed. M.B.A./417/F.Sc Appeal dismissed.