WASAL AHMAD vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had modified the petitioner's conviction from Section 304, Part-I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence from seven years to four years of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner sought to re-argue the evidence, which the Supreme Court declined to entertain, noting that such appreciation of evidence is not permissible in leave to appeal proceedings. Regarding the sentence, the petitioner contended that the maximum penalty was unwarranted. The Supreme Court rejected this plea, emphasizing that the incident involved the deaths of seven individuals due to the petitioner's rash and negligent driving. The Court held that given the gravity of the consequences—seven fatalities—a sentence lesser than the maximum prescribed under Section 304-A would not have been justified. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the appropriateness of the maximum sentence for the proven negligence.
- Is the appreciation of evidence permissible in proceedings for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Does the death of multiple victims due to rash and negligent driving justify the imposition of the maximum sentence under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner with a modification however that his conviction under section 304, Part-I, Pakistan Penal Code recorded by the trial Court was altered to one under section 304-A of the Code and accordingly the sentence of 7 years' R.I.
2. Awarded to him was reduced to 4 years' R.I. Which was the maximum penalty for that offence at the relevant time.
3. All the points raised in support of the petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner amount to a request for appreciation of evidence which is neither justified nor can be allowed in these proceedings. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition.
4. ' Learned counsel however submitted that the maximum penalty under the law was not warranted but this plea has no force at all. In the case 7 persons died on the spot as a result of accident which has been proved to be due to rash and negligent act of driving the bus by the petitioner. Lesser sentence than the maximum prescribed under section 304-A would not have even been justified in this case. The petition accordingly is dismissed.