Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 379 of 1980, decided on 19th October, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑4‑1980 in Criminal Revision No. 336 of 1980).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 304‑A & 337‑‑Rash and negligent driving‑‑Plea that there was misreading of evidence of solitary witness on whose statement alone conviction could not be based as the same lacked the required quality for the purpose‑‑Even statement of a single witness in such a case, held, may qualitatively be sufficient to arrive at conviction and sentence of accused‑‑Whether statement of witness possessed such quality required appraisement of evidence.

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Petitioner seeking appraisement of evidence which had already been done satisfactorily by Courts below‑‑Leave refused.

Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate with Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 19th October, 1980.

‑The petitioner, a convict under sections 304‑A and 337, P.P.C. seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑6‑1980 whereby his revision petition was dismissed in limine.

2. On the 31st October, 1976, at 7‑30 p.m. the petitioner was said to be driving Bus No. LRB/7227 belonging to the G.T.S. He hit a cyclist Abdul Majid P.W. who was injured and Muhammad Yusuf sitting on the rear seat of the cycle was thrown and run over by the bus. This accident took place near the petrol‑pump in the area of village Thatha Karimdad, District Gujranwala.

3. Three eye‑witnesses were produced two of whom were declared hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Abdul Majid (P.W. 4), the injured, stated about the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner resulting in the death of his companion Muhammad Yusuf and injuries to him. He made the report at the police station.

4. The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and stated that he had no knowledge that Muhammad Yusuf had been run over by the bus. He stated that he was involved on mere suspicion which was the result of mistaken identity.

5. The learned trial Court on the basis of statement made by Abdul Majid, the injuries received other evidence on record, convicted the petitioner under section 304‑A, P.P.C. and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment. He was further convicted under section 337, P.P.C. and sentenced to undergo further six months' rigorous imprisonment.

6. The petitioner appealed to the Sessions Court but the same was dismissed. His revision petition against conviction and sentence was dismissed in limine by the High Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there has been a misreading of evidence of Abdul Majid, the solitary witness in the case. According to the learned counsel this witness could not be at all a competent witness as to the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that he is seeking a reappraisal of the evidence which has already been examined by the appellate and the revisional Courts. He does not deny the legal proposition that in such a case even the statement of a single witness may qualitatively be sufficient to arrive at the conviction and sentence of an accused. His contention appears to be that the statement of Abdul Majid did not have that quality and content as to lead to the conviction of the petitioner. This submission does not raise any question of law as such but relates to the appraisement of evidence which has already been done satisfactorily by all the Courts dealing with the matter.

We find the sentence awarded is legal. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.

M.I. 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.