1990 P Cr (PLP)

S. 304-A

Rash and negligent driving

Appreciation of evidence

Identity of accused was proved by witnesses who either already knew him or had tried to apprehend him after the accident when he managed to run away

Defence could not bring anything on record even after lengthy cross-examination to indicate that witnesses were either not truthful or had any motive to falsely implicate accused, rather they were found to be independent witnesses

Slipping away of accused instead of attending to injured person also strengthened prosecution case that he was driving bus rashly and negligently

No misreading or non-reading of evidence was pointed out on behalf of accused

Conviction was maintained. G.R. Shaheen for Petitioner, The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that a case under section 304-A; P.P.C. was registered against the petitioner. The allegation against him was that on 20-12-1985 at about 3-15 p.m. he was driving a bus bearing No LHE-2975 of Government Transport. While driving rash and negligently, he collided the bus with a scooter bearing No. LHM-6978 near Domoria Bridge, and caused the death of one Abid Hussain who was driving the scooter. The learned trial Court vide its judgment, dated .14-6-1988 found him guilty and sentenced him to three years' R.I. and a fine of-Rs.10,000 under section 304-A, P.P.C. in default six months' R.I. He appealed against his conviction and sentence, which was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide his judgment, dated 19-4-1989. In the present revision the petitioner challenges the judgments of both the Courts below. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., therefore, case against him has not been proved. Submits that the witnesses produced by the prosecution did not belong to the locality, therefore, were chance witnesses. Contends that the identity of the petitioner was not established as no identification parade was held, therefore, it was a case of mistaken identity.

2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The case was registered at the Mayo Hospital, Lahore, where the dead body of Abid Hussain was taken. It was got, registered by a person who did not know the petitioner. The prosecution in order to support the identity' of the petitioner had produced three witnesses, out of them Shahid Harneed, P.W.2 deposed that the petitioner was already known to him. Similarly, Arif Ali, P.W.3 stated that he tried to apprehend the petitioner at the spot but he managed to run away after the accident. I have noticed that the witnesses were cross-examined at length but the defence could not bring anything on the record to indicate that they were not truthful or they had any motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner' further strengthens the independence of the witness because, according to him, they were not even known to the petitioner, I which would rule out any possibility of false involvement because of malice or ill will. The conduct of the petitioner further strengthens the case of the prosecution that he was driving rash and negligently because after the accident he slipped away from the scene instead of attending to the injured who expired later in the hospital. I have gone through the judgments of both the Courts below and find cogent reasons have been given for relying upon the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any misreading of B evidence or non-reading of the same. For the reasons discussed above, I find no merit in the petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. N.H.Q./M-1696/1 Petition dismissed.