Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 571 of 1984, decided on 15th May, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 304‑A‑‑Atedical evidence‑‑Rash and negligent driving‑‑Deceased dying on spot‑‑Doctor examining deceased and finding six wounds on his person‑‑Accused himself admitting death of deceased as a result of collusion with accused s vehicle‑‑‑‑‑Failure to conduct internal post‑mortem of deceased, held, would not make any difference.

‑‑‑S. 304‑A‑‑Rash and negligent driving‑‑All eye‑witnesses found to be quite independent having no ill‑will against accused‑‑No material contradiction /discrepancy found in statements of eye‑witnesses‑‑No inherent infirmity found in ocular evidence‑‑Medical evidence corro borating ocular evidence‑‑Defence version disbelieved Judgments of Courts below neither found to be perverse nor illegal‑‑Conviction maintained in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 304‑A‑‑Rash and negligent driving‑‑Defence version‑‑Defence version found to be afterthought as it was not put to prosecution witnesses‑‑Defence evidence in support of an afterthought version not found to be strong enough to rebut prosecution evidence‑‑Defence version disbelieved in circumstances.

Muhammad Hussain for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 15th May, 1985

The facts giving rise to this revision are that Muhammad Azeem was tried under section 304‑A, P.P.C. on the allegation of having caused the death of Muhammad Ramzan by rash and negligent driving on 22‑1‑1982. He pleaded not guilty.

2. The prosecution produced 7 witnesses. Muhammad Ismail P.W. 2, Muhammad Rafiq P.W. 4 and Haji Jalal Din P.W. 5 have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They have supported the prosecution case on all material, points. Mushtaq P.W. 6 stated that the occurrence took place on account of negligence of the appellant. Dr. Harbans Lal P.W. 7 conducted external post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Ramzan. He found 6 wounds on the dead body. In his opinion, the death was due to shock and profused blood due to the injuries found on the person of the deceased. He opined that it was an accidental case and the injuries were with blunt weapon. The, rest of the evidence is formal nature.

3. When examined under section 342, Cr. P.C., the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances. His plea was that Muhammad Ramzan deceased had himself struck his cycle with the Wagon. In defence, he produced two witnesses who supported the plea taken by the petitioner.

4. The trial Court convicted the appellant or, 27‑5‑1884 and sentenced him to 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.3,000. It was also directed that the appellant shall pay Rs.3,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default thereof 6 month' R.I. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 23‑9‑1984, hence this revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellant was never rash or negligent while driving the Wagon; that there are material discrespapcies in the statements of the eye‑witnesses and that there being no internal post‑mortem, the exact cause of death was not known. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care find that the three eye‑witnesses are quite independent having no ill‑will against the petitioner. Learned counsel has failed to point out any material contradiction/discrepancy in the statements of these witnesses. I also do not see any inherent infirmity in their evidence. The doctor had actually examined the deceased. He found 6 wounds on his person. Muhammad Ramzan had died on the spot immediately. The appellant himself admits the death of Muhammad Ramzan as a result of collusion with his Wagon. In these circumstances, the failure to conduct internal post‑mortem does not make any difference. The defence version was not put to the prosecution witnesses and as such, it was an after thought. The defence evidence in support of an afterthought version is not strong enough to rebut prosecution case and its evidence. The judgment of the Courts below are neither perverse nor illegal.

7. For what has been stated above, there being no force, the revision is dismissed.

H.A.K. Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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