QAISER REHMAN Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAWALPINDI

ORDER

The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that a case under section 304/337/279, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioner with Police Station Sadar, Jhang, vide F.I.R., dated 9‑6‑1984. The trial Magistrate vide his judgment, dated 3‑7‑1988 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to four years' R.I. under section 304, P.P.C. He was also ordered to pay Rs.2,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of each of the deceased, or in default further R.I. for one year. He was further convicted to six months' R.I. under section 337, P.P.C. and ordered to pay compensation of Rs.500 to each of the injured, or in default to suffer R.1. for two months. He was also convicted and sentenced to six months' R.I. under section 279, P.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was also given the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. The petitioner appealed against his conviction and sentence which came up before Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, who vide his judgment, dated 31‑7‑1988, converted the conviction from under section 304, P.P.C. to 304‑A, P.P.C. The conviction under section 279, P.P.C. was also set aside.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case seven persons had lost their lives and a number of persons were injured, but the prosecution did not produce all the injured; thereby its case became doubtful. Contends that some of the witnesses who were injured, did not support the prosecution story, therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the statement of other witnesses.

3. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the file. The petitioner was a driver of a bus which collided with a wagon, parked on the road. The collision resulted in the death of seven persons and five injured, all passengers of the ill‑fated wagon. The driver of the wagon also received injuries. The petitioner after the commission of the offence managed to slip away from the scene of occurrence. The accident which caused the death of seven persons was due to the negligence of the petitioner, because the petitioner in his statement under section A 342, Cr.P.C. has admitted to be the driver of the bus and has also admitted that the same met with an accident. He has further given an explanation that a truck overtook his bus raising a cloud of dust in which he could not see the wagon. According to the evidence brought on the file, this suggestion was not put to any of the witnesses. All of them are unanimous that the petitioner was rash and negligent, therefore, the accident took place. There is ample evidence which connects the petitioner with the commission of the offence. I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below and see no reason for interference in the same. Both the Courts below have given cogent reasons. In these circumstances, I see no merit in the petition which is, accordingly dismissed.

M.Y.H./M‑1240/L Petition dismiss