SHAFIQUE AHMAD vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the petitioner's conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving resulting in death. The petitioner was convicted under sections 304-A and 279 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an incident involving a trolley collision with a motorcyclist, which resulted in the death of the victim. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding the petitioner's identity as the driver and his culpability for rash and negligent driving warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding no merit in the petitioner's defense that another individual was driving the vehicle. The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the petitioner was indeed driving the trolley rashly and negligently at high speed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, maintaining the sentences while noting that the High Court had already directed the sentences for the two charges to run concurrently and that the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been granted.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts regarding the identity of a driver in a fatal accident case warrant Supreme Court interference?
- Can a sentence for rash and negligent driving be ordered to run concurrently with a sentence for driving a vehicle in a rash or negligent manner?
- Is the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences imposed for rash and negligent driving?
- Section 304-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 279, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 20th December, 1988 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, and his convictions under sections 304-A, P.P.C. And 279, P.P.C. As well as sentences were maintained with the direction that the sentences on the two charges would run concurrently.
2. The petitioner was tried for charges under section 304-A/279, P.P.C. And the trial Court vide its judgment convicted him under section 304-A, P.P.C. And sentenced him to four years' R.I. Plus fine.
3. He was likewise convicted under section 279, P.P.C. And sentenced to two years' R.I. Plus fine. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. On his appeal the convictions and sentences were maintained with a direction as stated above. This is a case of rash and negligent driving. The deceased in the instant case is Muhammad Salim who was driving his motorcycle. The petitioner was driving a trolley. The occurrence took place on 6th October, 1986 at 8 a.m. Within the area of Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh at Sem Nala highway. The accident was witnessed by five P.Ws.
4. According to the medical evidence the deceased received five injuries. The cause of death was head injuries. According to the prosecution version the deceased was crossing the Sem Nala bridge on motorcycle when the trolley being driven by petitioner coming from Muzaffargarh side, which was being rashly and negligently driven went out of the control of the petitioner and struck the deceased. The deceased died on the spot. The findings of the trial Court as well as the High Court are that the petitioner was driving the trolley in question rashly and negligently and therefore it collided with the motorcyclist who was dragged with the trolley for some distance alongwith the motorcycle and the deceased died on the spot. Learned counsel before us attempted to argue that it was not the petitioner who was driving the trolley in question but another person called Gui Khan who managed to escape, and that the petitioner was innocent. The case of the petitioner was that he was owner of the trolley and was present at Sahiwal at the time of the accident, the real driver of the same being Gul Khan. But this plea has neither been accepted by the trial Court nor by the appellate Court. Since the findings of both the Courts are that the petitioner had been rashly and negligently driving the trolley at a high speed he was liable for the offence. The High Court while awarding the sentence observed that already a lenient view had been taken. However, it directed that the sentences on the two charges should run concurrently. In addition to that the trial Court had directed that he be granted the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the deduction of any period of detention during his trial from the period of his sentence. Since this is the position no interference is called for. As a result this petition is hereby dismissed.