Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 213 of 1975, decided on 6th March, 1982.

--- S. 304-A-Evidence, appreciation of-Prosecution failed to prove that petitioner was driving bus rashly or with negligence-Bus involved in accident, also not got examined by some expert mechanic-Conviction and sentence set aside, in circumstances:

Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner.

This revision petition arises from the judgment of the learned Addi tional Sessions Judge, dated 5th March, 1975 dismissing the appeal filed by Faqir Muhammad appellant against his conviction under section 304-A, P. P. C. by Magistrate 1st Class, Pakpattan, sentencing him to six months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500 or in default further R. I. for three months.

2. It is unfortunate that the petitioner Faqir Muhammad has already served out the entire sentence. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, challenged the conviction.

3. The facts leading upto the prosecution of the petitioner in brief are that Abdul (P. W. 1), Sher Muhammad and Bagh Ali P. Ws. were sitting under a keekar tree when Taj Muhammad, a young boy of three years, was hit by a bus while crossing the road. The bus was driven by Faqir Muhammad petitioner. The boy succumbed to- the injuries at the spot. The occurrence was seen by the complainant and the above-men tioned witnesses. The external post-mortem examination was done by Dr. Feroze Khan. At trial, Abdul (P. W. 1), Bagh Ali (P. W. 2) and Sher Muhammad (P. W. 3) were examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They supported the prosecution version. It is stated that the bus, which was being driven by the petitioner stopped at a distance of 150 feet from the place of occurrence. The witnesses stated that no horn was blown by the petitioner and that after the occurrence the petitioner remained at the spot and was arrested by the Police. Muhammad Akram (P. W. 5) identi fied the handwriting of Dr. Feroze Khan on the report Exh. P. G. because the doctor was not available.

4. The petitioner denied the occurrence and stated that he was falsely implicated and that the driver who was actually driving the bus had run away and in his place he was substituted as an accused. D. W. 1 Maqbool Ahmad, who is share-holder of Alhamra Transport Company to which the bus belonged, stated that the petitioner was not the drive; at the time of the occurrence and the driver whose name was also Faqir Muhammad had flued away after the occurrence.

I have gone through the material available before me and the impugned judgment. I find that the prosecution has failed to prove that he petitioner was driving the bus rashly or with negligence. The bus was not got examined by some expert mechanic Zulfiqar A. S.-I. P. W. stated that he had cleared the course of mechanic and had observed that the gears A and brakes of the bus were defective. To my mind this is not sufficient and some expert should have been produced. For all these reasons, the conviction of the petitioner, who has served out the entire sentence, is set aside. Since the petitioner has served out the entire sentence, notice to the State was considered unnecessary.

S. G. D. Revision petition accepted:

Find a Lawyer Near You

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