IJAZ HUSSAIN Versus NAZAR HUSSAIN

The facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the petitioner had filed a complaint against Nazar Hussain Shah, Zamin Shah, Haider Shah and Ghulam Jaffar, for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C., alleging that his son, namely, Ghulam Hussain had gone to the village of the accused persons on 9‑2‑1983 where he had a fight with Haider Shah accused. On 10‑2‑1983 at about Deeger wela, petitioner's son Ghulam Hussain was present at Adda Wadhi when a car bearing No.1E‑8835 came from village of the accused persons which was being driven by Ghulam Jaffar accused. When the car came near Ghulam Hussain, three persons sitting in the car, namely, Nazar Hussain Shah, Zamin Shah and Haider Shah asked the driver of the car, Ghulam Jaffar, to run over Ghulam Hussain. On seeing the car approaching near said Ghulam Hussain, started receding. Haider Shah co‑accused is alleged to have abused the driver of the car for not running over Ghulam Hussain whereupon the driver of the car accelerated and ran over Ghulam Hussain who later on died in hospital. A statement of the injured was also recorded at the hospital by a Magistrate which was later on treated as dying declaration. In pursuance of the said incident, a case initially under section 307, P.P.C. was registered but on the death of Ghulam Hussain injured the offence was converted to section 304, P.P.C. The case was registered against Ghulam Jaffar only. Feeling aggrieved, the first informant also filed a complaint against the respondents mentioned above which was entrusted to a Magistrate for holding an inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate after holding an inquiry gave his report that prima facie, case under section 302/34, P.P.C. is only made out against, Haider Shah and Ghulam Jaffar accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, vide order, dated 3‑10‑1985 issued process to the above‑said accused and dismissed the complaint with regard to Nazar Hussain Shah and Zamin Shah accused.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the persons were in the same car which caused the death of Ghulam Hussain. Contends that the complainant in the case has clearly stated that all the accused had directed the driver of the car, namely, Ghulam Jaffar to run over the deceased. In this view of the matter section 34, P.P.C. would clearly be attracted.

3. I have heard learned counsel at length and perused the filer as well. In the dying declaration of Ghulam Hussain deceased he has only named Haider Shah, who had ordered the driver of the car to run over him. The complainant's claim that he overheard the respondents directing the driver to run over Ghulam Hussain, does not appear to be truthful. It is his own case that he was standing at some distance. In such circumstances, it would not have been possible for him to hear the conversation going on in a moving car. The l motive is also alleged against Haider Shah alone. There is nothing on the record to indicate that they shared the common intention. I have gone through the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha and find no infirmity in the same. I agree with his finding that the involvement of the respondents, namely Nazar Hussain Shah and Zamin Shah is not free from doubt.

4. For what has been discussed above, I find no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.

S.A./I‑80/L Petition dismissed