Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 11th March 1971, in Criminal Revision No. 34 of 1968).

Penal Code (XLV of 1960),

S. 304-A Rash and negligent driving‑Person driving car at very fast speed losing control of car and dashing against a woman carrying infant to her arms and thereby s killing child‑Held, conviction under S. 304‑A proper.

Muhammad Siddiq v. The State P L, D 1958. Kar. 445 distinguished.

Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. M. Hanif, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 16th August 1971.

WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑--

The petitioner was tried in the Court of Mr. Amjad Ali, Magistrate First Class, Karachi, under sections 304‑A and 338, P. P. C. The learned Magistrate con victed him under the above provisions of law and sentenced him to suffer R. 1. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo R. I. for six months and R. I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo R. 1. for six months respectively, by judgment dated the 3rd April 1967. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal before the Sessions Court. His conviction and sentence were, however, upheld by judgment dated the 27th February 1968, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi. The matter was then taken in revision and a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi, set aside the conviction .of the petitioner under section 338, P. P. C. but maintained the conviction and sentence under section 304‑A, P. P. C., by judgment dated the 11th March 1971. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.

The prosecution story is that on the 15th February 1965, the petitioner was driving Car No. KA‑7759. Abdul Hamid witness was sitting on the front seat. The car was coming from the Malir side. When it reached near Kala Chapra bus stop, three women were crossing the road ; one was carrying a child. It is alleged that the petitioner was driving the carat a very fast speed. He was unable to control it as a result of which the car dashed against the woman who was carrying a child. The woman and the child fell down at some distance. They were injured. They were taken by the constable. in the same car to the Airport Police Station. The woman and the child were then taken to the hospital and the child, later on, died in the hospital. The petitioner was charged for rash driving and the learned Courts below have convicted him on the ground that he was rash and negligent in driving and was responsible for the death of the deceased child.

Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that there was no evidence of rash and negligent driving and, therefore, the conviction of the petitioner is bad. The contention of the learned counsel has no force.

The following observation in the judgment of the High Court clearly shows that the question of rash and negligent driving was considered and was found against the petitioner :

"Abdul Hamid stated that the applicant was driving the car at a fast speed, for instance, it could be said that he was driving at the speed of 70 miles and in spite of the request having been made to him not to drive the car at such a speed he paid no heed. Subsequently when the car reached near Kala Chapra three women were standing near the bus stop in order to cross the road and one of the woman had an infant child and she wanted to cross the road, when she was visible from a distance of 20/25 paces. He was sitting on the front seat. The car dashed against the woman as a result of which she as well as the child fell down and sustained injuries."

It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that driving a car at a fast speed does not amount to rash and a negligent driving. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Karachi Bench in the case of Muhammad Siddiq v. The State (P L D 1958 Kar. 445). This decision does not help the petitioner. It was observed in this case that each case depends on its own facts. In some cases drivers going at a moderate speed may be found guilty of rash and negligent acts resulting in grievous hurt and death of the pedestrians. In the present case there is evidence that the petitioner was driving the car at a very fast speed. He was unable to control the car and dashed against the woman and the child who was crossing the road from the bus stop. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere in this matter. The petition is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.