1984 P Cr (PLP)

4. According to the first information report, the appellant while driving bus No.FDF/8611 of Kohistan Bus Service rashly and negligently had run over the deceased and the injured P.Ws. while they were present on the road side at Bus stop Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad. The bus after running over them had rammed through the shop of Muhammad Ramzan complainant and had later struck the shop of Bashir Ahmad as a result of which both the shops were damaged and the articles lying therein were broken and damaged. The accident was witnessed by Muhammad Ramzan complainant, Ashiq Ali and Sardar Muhammad shop-keepers, at Bus Stop Khurrianwala in addition to Muhammad Salim P.W.8. Rashid Ahmad P.W.10 and Manzur Ahmad (not produced at the trial), who were travelling in the bus. Bus No.FDF/8611 was taken into possession in damaged condition from the spot by Ijaz Hussain, Sub-Inspector P.W.9 vide memo. Exh.P.W.3/A, which was attested by Sardar Muhammad P.W.3. The appellant was arrested on 26th July 1982 at Faisalabad., Route permit, registration and his driving licence were taken into possession by the Sub-Inspector vide memo. EXh.P.W.2/A.

5. At the trial, prosecution in all examined ten witnesses. The appellant in his statement under section 340 Cr.P.C. denied that he was driving bus No.FDF/8611 at the time of accident or that he was responsible for the occurrence. In answer to question 'why this case against you', he stated 'due to enmity.' He pleaded innocence but did not produce defence.

6. Dr. Akhtar Ali P.W.1 after examining the dead bodies of Iftikhar, Akram, Muhammad Hussain, Asghar Ali, 2 Abdul Ghafoor and 2 unknown persons had issued death certificates. He had also examined the injured P.Ws. The death certificate regarding Ghulam Nabi was issued by Dr. Bashir Hussain Kahloon P.W.7. The same doctor had earlier examined this witness on 21st July, 1982 for his injuries. In answer to the query made by the Sub-Inspector through Exh.P.W.7/ D, the doctor opined that Ghulam Nabi was not fit to make a statement. Abdur Rashid Shorash P.W.5 had examined the bus at the spot at about 10/10-30 a.m. the same day. In cross-examination he stated that the bus has pressure brake, and that at the time of his examination there was no pressure in the brake. He stated in cross-examination that the accident might have taken place because of failure of the brake. Muhammad Saleem P.W.8 who was travelling in the bus, has although stated that the occurrence had taken place, but he expressed his inability to identify the accused durin.I trial. Rashid Ahmad P.W.10 while stating that he was travelling in the bus 'For Sialkot, stated that the appellant was not driving the bus at that t1me. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the counsel for the State.

6. Apart from the above witnesses, the eye-witness account has been deposed by Ashiq Ali P.W.2, Sardar P.W.3 and Muhammad Ramzan P.W.4 (complainant), who were shop-keepers at Bus Stand Khurrianwala. Ashid Ali's brother Iftikhar had also died in this accident. All three of them have stated that the bus after having run over the deceased, had rammed into the shops, thereby damaging the shops and the articles lying therein. Muhammad Ramzan P.W.4 has stated that 70-75 crates of bottles and a deep-freezer, which were lying in his shop, were broken in addition to the damage caused to the shop, as a result of which he had suffered a loss of about 50-60 thousands of rupees. These details, he has given in cross-examination. The prosecution witnesses have denied the suggestion of having not seen the occurrence.

7. Ijaz Hussain, S.I. Investigating Officer has deposed about having recorded the F.I.R. on the statement of Muhammad Ramzan alias Jan Muhammad, having prepared the injury statements of the deceased and the injured P.Ws., having taken the bus into possession, having-arrested the appellant on 26-7-1982, and of having taken the licence and other papers pertaining to the bus, into possession.

8. Learend counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable shadows of doubt that it was the appellant who was driving the bus; that the two witnesses who were travelling in the bus have not supported the prosecution case; that the promptitude shown in lodging the F.I.R. affects the prosecution case adversely as the detailed facts given in the F.I.R. could not have been collected by the complainant within a short span of 5 minutes. Learned counsel next contended that the F.I.R. apparently appears to have been recorded by the Sub-Inspector after deliberations on having reached the spot. Lastly, it is contended that the sentence is severe.

9. Learend counsel for the State has defended the judgment of the trial Court.

10. It is appellant's own case that the witnesses did not know him. Obviously, they cannot be dubbed as inimical towards the appellant. His stance, therefore, that he has been involved in this case because of enmity, is just a humbug. No question has been put to the Investigating Officer, also, that he was inimically disposed towards the appellant for anything or in any manner. Although the two witnesses who were travelling in the bus have not supported the prosecution case but the accident is not denied by them even. The witnesses, who have deposed the eye-witness account, have made consistant statements. All of them have stated that the appellant who was driving the bus, had run away from the spot. They had identified him during the trial also as the person who was driving the bus at the time of accident. Muhammad Ramzan complainant P.W.4 has made no boast of the fact that he knew the appellant earlier. He has stated in the first information report that he had come to know the name of the appellant after the occurrence. The route permit of the bus and the other documents pertaining to the bus were taken into possession during investigation from the appellant. He was not owner of the bus. He could not have the papers with him unless he was driver of the bus. His driving licence had also been taken into possession. He belonged to some village in District Vehari. None could have thought of naming a person belonging to such a far off place, in the F.I.R. lodged at Khurrianwata, District Faisalabad, soon after the occurrence.

11. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the details given in the first information report could not have been collected by the complainant within 5 minutes to report the master at the police station, and that the F.I.R. was lodged at the spot, even if granted for the sake of argument, cannot affect the merits of the case in view of the fact of there being no enmity of the complainant or the other P.Ws. including the Investigating Officer, against the appellant.

12. The argument that the accident might have taken place because of failure of the brake-does not advance the case of the appellant in any manner, firstly, for the reason that the statement of the mechanic that there was no pressure in the brake, cannot be accepted as he had examined the bus after the accident. The bus had been damaged colossally and the fact of the mechanic having not found the pressure in the brake after such an accident, cannot be granted to mean that the brake had failed prior to the accident. In any case it was the responsibility of the appellant not to have driven the bus, if the brakes were not working properly. The case- against the appellant of having driven the bus rashly and negligently stands proved. Because of his negligence and carelessness, 9 persons have lost their lives. The identity of one person could not be established even during the investigation and the position remained so even at the time of trial. The poor victim's family might still be living under agony as to where he was lost. The death toll is so high and great that no case for mitigation is made out. There is no merit in this appeal. The same stands dismissed. The sentences under sections 304-A and 337, P.P.C. are, however, directed to run concurrently. The petitioner shall also be given the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed.