MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE

Muhammad Aslam (28) was tried under section 304, P.P.C. for having caused the death of Ghulam Haider, Allah Bakhsh and Kh. Qamaruddin. He was also charged under section 338, P.P.C. for causing injuries to Muhammad Nawaz and Abdul Majid Aslam P.Ws. On 1‑10‑1983 Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, convicted him on all counts. He was sentenced to 10 years' R.I. on the three counts under section 304, P.P.C. and three years' R.I. under section 338, P.P.C. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was also fined Rs.3,000 on each count under section 304, P.P.C. and Rs.1,000 on the counts under section 338, P.P.C. in default to suffer two years and a months' R.I. respectively. Fine if realised on the counts under section 304, P.P.C. was ordered to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the three deceased and the fine or the other counts to be paid to the injured witnesses. Appeal of the convict and the revision for enhancement of sentence are before me.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 18‑7‑1981 V about 7‑00 a.m. car No.SGA‑6101 carrying the three deceased and the two injured was on its way from Sargodha to Lahore. As it reached near Chak No.110/S. B., Truck No.RIB‑6805 driven by the appellant appeared from the opposite direction. Coming at high speed, it moved in a zig‑zag manner and collided with the car which was coming at a normal speed and was on its correct side of the road. The collusion smashed the engine and compressed the front seat on the driving side, as a result of which Ghulam Haider Driver, died then and there, it became difficult to pull him out. Allah Bakhsh who was sitting in the rear side behind the driver met the same fate. Kh. Qamaruddin who was sitting on the front seat with the driver received serious injuries and died in the Mayo Hospital, Lahore on 20‑8‑1981 i.e. two days later. Mohammad Nawaz and Abdul Majid Aslam, the remaining two passengers of the car survived. They are eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. At the relevant time, P.W.1 Muhammad Fayyazuddin, a nephew of Kh. Qamaruddin (deceased) appeared at the scene. He was coming from Lahore and was on his way to Sargodha. He also witnessed the accident and helped out the injured. He took them to the hospital and reported the occurrence to P.W.6 Nazir Ahmad, Inspector, near Khayyam Cinema, Sargodha, at 8‑30 a.m. on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A/1 was recorded at Police Station, Bhagtanwala, Sargodha, at 9‑30 a.m. the same any. After the accident, the appellant fled away and was later arrested on 23‑7‑1981.

3. P.W.7 Dr. Muhammad Saeed, Medical Officer D.HA., 4ospltal, Sargodha held the autopsy on the dead bodies of Ghulam Haider, and Allah Bakhah on 18‑7‑1981. Ghulam Haider suffered 7 injuries on different parts of his body, while Allah Bakhsh suffered a laceration on the left side of his forehead extending to the left cheek with compressed fracture of the bone underneath and three abrasions on the left leg. The same day, he also examined Kh. Qamarud in who was alive and found six injuries on different parts of his body. He also examined P.W. Abdul Majid Aslam who had suffered 5 injuries and Muhammad Nawaz who had suffered 6 injuries. Kh. Qamaruddin was admitted in the C.M.H. Hospital on 20‑7‑1984 and died the same evening at 10‑45 p.m. Exh P.S. is the death certificate giving the details of injuries. It was issued and proved by C.W.2 Dr. Bashir Ahmad Rathore, C.M.H. Hospital, Lahore. It was obtained by the Investigating Officer. P.W.10 Mukhtar Ali, A.S.I, also investigated the case, took into possession car boarded by the deceased and the truck No. RIB‑6805 driven by the accused alongwith its Insurance Book, Registration Book and Driving Licence of Muhammad Aslam accused as Exh.P.I. These were taken into possession through memo. Exh.P.O. The Investigating Officer alongwith the owner of the truck raided the house of the accused but he was not available. However, he appeared before him on 23‑7‑1981 and was arrested. Since he bore an injury his injury statement was prepared and he was got examined through Dr. Muhammad Saeed, M.O. D.H.Q. Hospital Sargodha who found a lacerated wound on the right side of his forehead which was simple in nature. After completing the investigation, the accused was sent up for trial.

4. According to the accused, he' was not, the driver of the truck and could not explain as to why he has been roped in this case. He also denied having received any injury in the accident. He however, admitted that the Driving Licence P.I. was his. When questioned that on light driving licence, he was not entitled to drive a heavy vehicle, to this the accused showed ignorance. In support of his defence, he led no evidence.

5. Trial Court relied on the evidence of the injured eye‑witnesses and of P.W.1 Muhammad Fayyazuddin who saw the accident and made the report. Relying on the recovery of Driving Licence and other papers of the truck, it came to the conclusion that the appellant Muhammad Aslam was the driver of the truck at the relevant time which was further supported by the evidence of the eye‑witnesses who identified him at the trial.

6. Criticizing the finding, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution had failed to establish the identity of the accused. I do not see any force in the submission. The case is overwhelming against the accused. Not only that the injured witnesses saw him running away after the accident, P.W.1 Fayyazuddin informant, who happened to reach the place of occurrence also identified him. Moreover, the driving licence recovered from the truck connected the accused with the crime of which he has given no plausible explanation. In fact he has led no evidence at all. I have no reason to doubt the prosecution witnesses.

7. In so far as the accident was concerned, deceased's car was on the correct side of the road. It was in fact the appellant's truck which went on its wrong side and struck the car crushing the driver's seat and the rear side. This impact clearly shows that the truck had `gone I to the wrong side. There is nothing to indicate that the truck was out of order. Had the driver been at a low seed, he would not have caused extensive damage and could have even avoided the accident.

8. I agree with the submission that the offence in this case would fall under section 304‑A, P.P.C. and not under section 304, Part I P.P.C. 1, therefore, alter the conviction accordingly. As to sentence, it shall have to be on one count only because the act of rash and negligent driving is a single act. Simply because in its consequence three persons were Killed it would not increase his liability Since the appellant in this case has caused extensive damage, while maintaining his sentence of 10 years' R.I., he is allowed the benefit of section 382‑B. Cr.P.C. i.e. the period in which he remained in custody before his trial shall be deducted from the period of his sentence. His sentence of fine of Rs.3,000 is maintained which if realised shall be equally distributed between the heirs of Ghulam Haider and Allah Bakhsh (deceased). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Kh. Qamarud Din Sialvi (deceased) stated that the heirs of Kh. Qamarud Din Sialvi would not like to accept compensation. As such, the compensation is being distributed between the heirs of the abovementioned two deceased. The sentences under section 338, P.P.C. is maintained. Both the sentence shall however, run concurrently.

H.A.K. Appeal dismissed.