GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition in limine while granting the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner was originally convicted by a Magistrate under section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing death by negligence, resulting in a sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, which was subsequently reduced on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction for rash and negligent driving was sustainable given the defense's argument that the deceased contributed to the accident by attempting to board a moving bus. The Supreme Court found that the lower courts had already duly considered the contention regarding the petitioner's speed and the deceased's contributory negligence. Consequently, the Court held that there was no valid ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding rash and negligent driving?
- Does an attempt by a passenger to board a moving bus absolve the driver of liability under section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a revision petition in limine subject to interference if the lower courts have already addressed the factual contentions?
- Section 304-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The petitioner was convicted by Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad, under section 304-A, P.P.C. And sentenced to R.I. For three years and a fine of Rs, 5;000 or, in default in payment thereof, to R.I. For six months. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, maintained the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to R.I. For years, the sentence of fine remaining the same. The petitioner came up in revision before the Lahore High Court and though the same was dismissed in limine by the impugned order, dated 10-10-1983, he was given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Not satisfied, he has approached this Court for leave to appeal.
2. The case against the petitioner had proceeded upon the allegation that on the signal of the waiting passengers at the corner of the Crescent Mills and Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad, the petitioner, who was driving the bus, had slowed down but as the deceased in order to board the bus had just caught hold of the rod of the bus, the petitioner stepped up the speed, with the result that the deceased fell down and was run over by the rear wheel of the bus.
3. It is contended that the petitioner had not slowed down the bus, at the signal of the waiting passengers but because of the turn of their road and that the deceased had himself contributed to the accident by trying to board the running bus. The contention has already been attended to by the Courts below and we see no reason to interfere with their concurrent conclusion. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.