GHULAM RASOOL SHAH versus STATE THROUGH S.H.O. POLICE STATION GARHI DOPUTTA
Sections 279, 320 and 323 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Section 42, by printing and driving appeals to the Supreme Court from Qalat Ekhata and Dit, did not see the incident, but did receive notification of the incident. It happened when he was patrolling with other police officers in Section HO, who brought the Jeep under control and prepared a recovery memo, saying he could call the accident because of skid marks on the spot. The negligence, recklessness and speed of the driver of the Jeep caused the driver to arrive when the section HO arrived, the accident has already happened, how can he detect from the skid marks that he said that the marks belong to the Jeep. Who met The accident, when there were skid marks of different vehicles on the road, there was no evidence on file that it could be said that the skid mark was identified by any other witness, Section HA stated this statement anywhere. I did not exclude that the jeep was speeding, based on testimony that was caused by the separation of the four-wheeler and there was no driver in such a situation. The jeep could control and it had to deal with an accident, contradicting the statements of witnesses as to how the accident happened. All the prosecution's witnesses only stated that the accident caused the jeep to run, but not a single witness could indicate. Also, the speed at the time of the accident was the self-contradictory position of the accused / driver described by the witnesses, who was initially found by the Jeep Central Arm pin due to the accident and did not deny this version of the suspect.
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2010
