Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No. 352 of 1983, heard on 11th February, 1984.
-- Ss. 304-A & 337-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439 --Rash and negligent driving-Evidence showing that accused drove bus at a fast speed and struck against tonga resulting in death of a passenger on tonga and injuries to tonga driver-Prosecution witnesses having no motive to falsely implicate accused-No exceptional circumstances present in case - Interference against conviction declined by High Court in revisional jurisdiction.
--S. 439-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 304-A & 337-Revisional jurisdiction-Interference by High Court in. revisional jurisdiction only in exceptional circumstances.
Muhammad Sarfraz Khan for Petitioner.
Sh. Nasiruddin for the State.
Date of hearing: 11th February, 1984.
Imdad Hussain petitioner was convicted under sections 304-A and 337, P. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for three and a half years under sec tion 304-A, P. P. C. and R. I. for six months under section 337, P. P. C. with the direction that both the sentences shall run consecutively. He was also fined Rs. 5,000 on each count or in default in the payment thereof to undergo further R. I. for six months. Half of the fine was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and the remaining half to injured P. W. Rehmat Masih. The petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence in the Sessions Court but his appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, by his judgment dated 5th May, 1983. He has come up in revision .to . question the correctness and pro priety of the aforesaid orders.
2. The prosecution version is that on 1st November, 1980 at 4 p. m. the petitioner while driving Bus No. 3871/M. N. B. rashly and negligently, struck it against a tonga near the mosque of Chak No. 372/G. B. as;, result of which Rehmat-Masih tonga driver and Muhammad Bashir who was travelling in the tonga as a passenger, suffered injuries and the latter succumbed to his injuries at the spot.
3. In support of its case the prosecution examined four witnesses, namely, Muhammad Ashraf complainant, Rehmat Masih, Yousuf and Zamir Hussain A. S. I., P. Ws. Dr. Ghulam Rasool was examined as Court witness.
4. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against him. He stated that he had been implica ted at the instance of the owner of the bus.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the name of the petitioner as the driver of the bus was incorporated in the F. I. R. four days after the occurrence. To support his contention he has relied on the statement of the complainant that the accused produced the papers pertaining to the bus before the police four days after the occurrence and he came to know about his name on that day. It is further submitted that in fact the bus was being driven by the owner and the petitioner bad been made a scape goat.
6. I have gone through the record and given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel. It is true that Muhammad Ashraf complainant had stated at the trial that the papers pertaining to bus were produced before the police four days later and that he came to know about the name of the accused on the day when the papers were produced. If the statement of Muhammad Ashraf is kept out of consideration on that score, there still remains the evidence of two other witnesses, namely, Rehmat Masih and Yousuf Ali who had stated that the petitioner drove the bus at a fast speed and struck against the tonga as a result of which Muhammad Bashir died at the spot and Rehmat Masih suffered injuries. These P. Ws. had absolutely no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. It will be noted that the occurrence took place in the abadi of Chak No. 372/G. B. near the village mosque. If oh approach ing the abadi the petitioner had slowed down the speed, this unfortunate occurrence would not have happened. On revisional side this Court interferes only in exceptional circumstances which are not available in this case.
7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground for interference with the impugned orders. This petition is dismissed.
M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer