MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus STATE

The applicant was convicted by Civil Judge and 1. F. M., Badin of offences under sections 279 and 337, P. P. C. by his judgment, dated 15th December, 1980 and sentenced to R. 1. for six months for offence under section 279, P. P. C., and fined Rs. 500 for offence under section 337, P. P. C. It was further ordered that in default of payment of fine the applicant shall undergo R. I. for three months. Rs. 300 were directed to be paid as compensation to injured Nazir out of the fine if recovered from the applicant.

2. Against the above conviction and sentence the applicant filed appeal before Sessions Judge Badin that was dismissed by his judgment dated 16th September, 1981. Hence the applicant has challenged the two judgments by this revision application.

3. The facts of the case are that injured Nazir was parking his motor-cycle by the side of the road in Badin City when the applicant came driving his `Datsun' car by the wrong side on a one-way traffic road and collided with Nazir. As a result of this Nazir received minor injuries, but no damage was caused to his motor-cycle. Nazir, Muhammad Umer and Taj Muhammad saw the incident. During the trial only Nazir and Taj Muhammad were examined as the main witnesses. Muhammad Umer was not examined. Other witnesses, who were examined are formal, being mashir and the Investigating Officer.

4. So far as the main incident is concerned, it is proved from the evidence of Nazir and Taj Muhammad, who have deposed that the accused was driving his car very fast and had come from the wrong side by the road, which was one-way. Traffic road. This evidence which has been accepted by both the Courts below cannot be challenged in revision application. I do not see any reason to disbelieve these witnesses. The applicant also has not denied that he was driving the car. He has not cross examined the witnesses on the point that he was driving the car in a fast speed after having broken the one-way traffic rule Hence his rashness is established.

5. However, it has been rightly argued by Mr. Ahmed Saeed Qureshi that the accused cannot be convicted separately for offences under sections 279 and 337, P. P. C., because offence under section 279, P. P. C., is included in the offence under section 337, P. P. C. The applicant had, by his rash and negligent act caused simple hurt to Nazir. The accused cannot be convicted for rash and negligent act as well as for causing simple hurt to Nazir by rash and- negligent act. The offence under section 279, P. P. C., is therefore, a part. of offence under section 337, P. P. C., which is wider in scope vis-a-vis offence under section 279, P. P. C. In view of the above position the sentence for offence under section 279, P. P. C., shall be deemed to have been imposed for the same act for which he has been sentenced separately by the trial Court under section 337, P. P. C.

6. Looking to the minor nature of the incident, the imprisonment 3f six months appear to be on the severe side. The applicant has already undergone more than a month in prison after his conviction. Hence it will not be appropriate to sentence him to further imprisonment. However, the fine of Rs. 500 imposed for offence under section 337, P. P. C., is c maintained, out of which Rs. 300 if recovered, shall be paid to injured Nazir as compensation. The applicant is absent today. He is given one month's time to pay up the fine. In default of payment the trial Judge shall issue non-bailable warrant against him for committing him to prison.

M. Y. H. Order accordingly