JAN MUHAMMAD Versus State

ORDER

1. DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, C.J.--- The learned Advocate General and learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Punial/Ishkoman District Ghizer was based on appraising prosecution evidence on record, wherein, the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the petitioner giving him benefit of doubt. He further contended the prosecution case based on the evidence of PW-3 Afzal-ul-Haq, who stated that he heard the voice of collusion of vehicles and when he reached at the place of occurrence, he saw the colluded vehicles. Whereas, PW-6 Muhammad Taib stated that he was on his way towards home, he suddenly heard voice of the crash and explosion and after reaching at the place of occurrence, he saw the smashed vehicles, whereas, PWs-2 and 5 accompanying the complainant in the said vehicle, who deposed that suddenly they heard a voice of collusion from the rear side of car whereafter they become unconscious, consequently, they both have not seen, who hit the said vehicle causing accident.

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to produce any material on record warranting conviction. No inference can be drawn that the accident of the car was due to rash driving and negligence of the accused. On the contrary, the learned Counsel submits that the complainant was responsible for the said accident as admittedly his car entered into the main road, and he may have not seen the vehicle coming behind him causing accident and the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly acquitted the petitioner. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Further, the responsibility of the accident was also not fixed for such accident as to whether it was negligence of petitioner or the fault of respondent.

3. The learned Counsel for petitioner also contended that the Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan has not appreciated to the fact that the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate were properly appraised the prosecution evidence on record in acquitting the petitioner. The impugned Judgment dated 19.11.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2012, passed by the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan is based on misreading of evidence and is liable to set aside being not sustainable whereas the Judgment/Order dated 14.05.2012 in FIR No. 18/2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is well founded and be maintained. He lastly, contends that the learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan reversed the Judgment of learned Trial Court on the hearsay evidence and the statements of two PWs who were present in car and became unconscious when the accident took place, hence, the Judgment of the learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan is not tenable in law and the same is be set aside.

4. The learned Advocate General GB supported the order of the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan but he could not controvert the statement of PW-3 namely Afzal-ul Haq as it was merely hearsay evidence. He luke warmly opposed and admitted that PW-2 Iqbal Hassan and PW-5 Abdul Khaliq were present in car and when the complainant's car hit from back with the vehicle of accused they became unconscious, consequently, they did not see the person hitting the car.

5. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and we are in agreement with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The conviction cannot be recorded on hearsay evidence without any corroboration as admittedly the PW-2 and PW-5 present in car become unconscious and have not seen who hit the car of complainant.

6. In view of the above discussion, the petition is converted into an appeal and is allowed. Consequently, the impugned Judgment dated 19.11.2013 in Cr. Appeal. No. 15/2012 passed by the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The Judgment/Order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Punial/Ishkoman District Ghizer is maintained.

7. Appeal Allowed.

8. HBT/173/GB Appeal allowed.