Summary: Acquittal granted--- The revision petition challenged a judgment affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrate Section 30, Sahiwal, on the petitioner for offenses under Sections 320, 279, and 427 PPC. The case arises from a collision between a Yamaha motorcycle and a Hilux Pick-up driven by the petitioner, resulting in the death of Mukhtar Ahmad. The prosecution argued that the petitioner drove negligently and rashly, causing the accident. The court noted discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, including contradictions in witness testimonies and inconsistencies in the accounts of the accident. It emphasized the importance of the Inquest Report, which did not identify the driver at the time of its preparation. The court concludes that there is reasonable doubt about the petitioner's involvement and questions the credibility of the prosecution's case. The judgment delved into legal principles related to rash and negligent driving, highlighting the need for a careful examination of the circumstances. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the petitioner, resulting in the acquittal of the charges.

Summary: The petitioner contested the charge under Section 320 PPC, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The petitioner's counsel contended that there was no concrete evidence linking the petitioner to the accident and questioned the credibility of eyewitnesses. The judgment critically analyzed the evidence presented during the trial. The court noted inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses, highlighting that the complainant, who initially reported being present at the scene, was later found not to have witnessed the accident directly. The court emphasized the lack of evidence connecting the petitioner to the accident and the failure to establish that the tractor-trolley was being driven rashly or negligently. The judgment cites legal precedents defining "rash and negligent driving" and underscored the necessity of proving these elements in such cases. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof, resulting in a defective investigation. The petitioner was acquitted, and the conviction and sentence are set aside. The petitioner was ordered to be released from jail unless detained for other reasons

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 320, 279 & 427---Qatl-e-Khata, rash driving on public way and mischief causingdamage---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for causingdeath of deceased due to rash and negligent driving---Prosecution case was that accused wasdriving oil tanker in a rash and negligent manner, thereby endangering human life and safetyof others and while driving so, he hit the deceased from wrong side and caused his death---Record showed that case was registered on the complaint of uncle of the deceased---Admittedly, neither complainant was eye-witness of the occurrence nor he had disclosed hissource of information while lodging the FIR as well as in his statement before court---Complainant reached at the spot when accident had already taken place, as such, he had notseen the accident---Complainant, in such circumstance could not say that the accident tookplace due to negligence and carelessness of accused and deceased was hit from wrong side---Nothing was available on record on the basis of which, it could be ascertained that theaccident in question was the result of negligence on the part of accused---Prosecution casewas that the deceased was driving motorcycle at the time of accident, which was fully loadedwith stationery articles---Possibility that the accident in question occurred due to negligenceon the part of deceased, could not be ruled out---Circumstances established that prosecutionfailed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt, the benefit of which would resolve infavour of accused---Accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recordedby the Trial Court.(b) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Principle---Prosecution had to prove its case against the accusedbeyond doubt---Accused would be presumed to be innocent until the case was fully provedagainst him---If there was a room for doubt, benefit thereof was to go to the accused.Khushal v. State 1971 SCMR 357 rel.(c) Criminal trial-------Conviction---Scope---Conviction could not be awarded merely on the basis ofpresumptions, surmises and conjectures.

Summary: Negligent Rash Driving--Must prove case beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary: S. 279, 320, 337-G, 427 PPC Benefit of doubt, negligence rest to deceased, driving without a license, a single doubt sufficient for the release of an accused. (Appeal allowed)

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302, 324, 320, 279, 337-G, 337-H & 427---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7& 23---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, qatl-i-khata by rash and negligent driving,rash driving or riding on a public way, hurt by rash and negligent driving, hurt by rash andnegligent act, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, act of terrorism---Petition for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary criminal court withcontention that the offences alleged against the petitioner were of rash and negligent drivingor in alternate qatl-i-bisabab, ingredients of S. 6(m)(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,therefore, were not attracted; case of petitioner was triable by the ordinary court and theprosecution with mala fide intention, had subsequently inserted S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act,1997, to deprive both the parties from compromise---Validity---Prosecution case was thataccused (Member Provincial Assembly) was driving the vehicle speedily---Traffic SubInspector signaled the vehicle to stop but it did not stop and hit the Traffic Sub-Inspector andrider of a bicycle, due to which the cycle rider and Traffic Sub-Inspector were injured butTraffic Sub-Inspector, succumbed to the injuries---Record showed that matter was reportedpromptly to the police---Accused remained fugitive from law from 20th June, 2017 to 24thJune, 2017 and thereafter arrested on public pressure by the police---Record revealed thataccused was driving the vehicle without a valid driving license---Accused did not bother torescue the injured persons---Circumstances showed that it was not a case of simple accidentdue to rash and negligent driving---Record transpired that there were other FIRs available onrecord against the accused/petitioner, wherein one of the FIR was lodged against him underSs. 365, 342, P.P.C. & S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as such, the past conduct of theaccused could be adjudged from the said FIRs---Such act of the petitioner had created a senseof fear and insecurity amongst the police force and the general public---Record revealed thatthe manner in which the occurrence had taken place appeared repeatedly in news channelsand daily newspapers---CDs of the incident were also taken into possession by theprosecution from the official CCTVs and private channels, which further prima faciehighlighted the act of accused as that of "terrorism"---Constitutional petition being devoid ofmerits, was dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 320---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 340(2) & 342---Qatl-i-Khata by rash or negligent driving---Appreciation of evidence---Di'yat, non-awarding of---Accused was allegedly driving vehicle rashly and negligently and as a result, accident took place and six people lost their lives while fourteen were injured---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him for five years imprisonment but did not order payment of Di'yat amount---Validity---Accused in order to disprove allegation of rash and negligent driving should have made a statement on oath under S.340(2), Cr.P.C.---Accused, in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., was unable to make any explanation as to why evidence had come on record against him---Trial Court rightly convicted the accused but should have added punishment of payment of Di'yat to legal heirs of each deceased---Trial Court in view of the use of word 'shall' in S.320,P.P.C. had no option to avoid ordering payment of Di'yat to legal heirs of deceased while convicting accused---High Court maintained the conviction but modified the sentence and included payment of Di'yat to legal heirs of the deceased person by the accused---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)??????S. 426??? Suspension of sentence??? Accused after having filed an appeal against hisconviction under a bailable offence is entitled to bail as a matter of right. [p. 2101 AMian Mahmud Ali Qasuri and others v. The State PLD 1963 SC 478 and Hataand others v. The State PLD 1967 Lah. 1302 ref.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)??????S. 426(1)???Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.320??? Suspension of sentence ?? Accused,a Mini Bus driver, in a case of a fatal accident had been convicted and sentenced underS.320, P.P.C. and his appeal against his conviction and sentence had beenadmitted???Offence being bailable accused after admission of his appeal was entitled tobe released on bail as a matter of right ???Sentence of accused was consequentlysuspended and he was released on bail accordingly. [p. 2101 BMian Mahmud Ali Qasuri and others v. The State PLD 1963 SC 478 and Hataand others v. The State PLD 1967 Lah. 1302 ref.

Summary: Acquittal granted --- The petitioner sought to overturn the judgment and be acquitted in a case registered under FIR No. 464/2014 dated 04.12.2014 under Sections 279, 427, and 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at Police Station Ramna, Islamabad. The case stemmed from a traffic accident on 30.11.2014 that resulted in the deaths of Javed Akhtar Qazi and Shoaib Akhtar. ----Issues: 1) Whether the delayed FIR (lodged five days after the incident) could be considered reliable. ---2) Whether the prosecution's failure to name any eyewitnesses or the accused in the FIR affected the case's credibility. ---3) Whether the petitioner could be held responsible for the accident based on the evidence presented. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in question and that his driving was rash and negligent, leading to the accident. ----Delay in FIR: The FIR was lodged five days after the incident with no plausible explanation, undermining its reliability. ----Lack of Eyewitnesses: The complainant was not an eyewitness, and the subsequently introduced eyewitnesses were not mentioned in the delayed FIR. Their testimonies lacked consistency and did not identify the petitioner as the driver. -----No Site Plan by Eyewitnesses: The site plan was not prepared by any eyewitness, further weakening the prosecution's case. ----Prosecution's Burden of Proof: The prosecution failed to provide evidence regarding the speed limit on Kashmir Highway or the petitioner's driving speed. No evidence proved that the petitioner drove rashly or negligently. ----Petitioner's Statement: The petitioner's statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. denied rash and negligent driving, and his statement should be taken in its entirety. ----Outcome: The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed by a majority of 2:1. The judgments of the trial court, appellate court, and the High Court were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt. ----Citations/Precedents: Israr Khan v. The State and another (2018 YLR Note 236) Muzaffar Ali alias Nannah v. The State (1999 MLD 567) Muhammad Ashiq v. The State (2018 YLR 2589) Mushtaq v. The State (1998 P.Cr.L.J. 158) Muhammad Rafique v. The State (2020 P.Cr.L.J. 688) Yasir Arafat v. The State (2012 MLD 611) Muhammad Rafique vs. The State (2020 P.Cr.L.J. 688) Muhammad Asghar v. The State (PLD 2008 SC 513) Shabbir Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 343) The State v. Muhammad Hanif and 5 others (1992 SCMR 2047) Ghulam Qadir v. Esab Khan (1991 SCMR 61) Sultan Khan v. Sher Khan (PLD 1991 SC 520) ----Dissent Note: Justice Ayesha A. Malik dissented from the majority opinion, finding that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner drove rashly and negligently, leading to the fatal accident. ----Evidence of Rash and Negligent Driving: Eyewitness Testimonies: Javed Akhtar (PW-2) and Khan Khawas Khan (PW-4) testified that the Land Cruiser was speeding and failed to slow down at a red traffic signal, causing the collision. The presence of PW-2 was corroborated by police records. Police Report: The police report and site plan indicated 60 feet of tire marks, suggesting the petitioner applied brakes harshly due to high speed. Section 342 Statement: The petitioner admitted to driving the Land Cruiser and acknowledged the accident occurred despite his claimed caution, indicating control issues over the vehicle. -----Delayed FIR: The initial police report (Rapat No.50) was recorded on the same night of the accident, detailing the involvement of the Land Cruiser and the presence of eyewitnesses. The delay in the formal FIR did not undermine the timely initial report. Rule 22.48 of the Police Rules supports the credibility of the daily police diary as a complete and accurate record of events, including the accident details. ----Petitioner's Statement: The statement under Section 342 CrPC must be read in its entirety. The petitioner admitted to driving and to the accident, which corroborated the prosecution's case of rash and negligent driving. Outcome: Justice Ayesha A. Malik dissented from the majority opinion, supporting the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner for rash and negligent driving leading to the deaths of Javed Akhtar Qazi and Shoaib Akhtar. She found the judgments of the lower courts to be well-reasoned and did not warrant interference by the Supreme Court. The petition was dismissed, and leave was refused. ----Citations/Precedents: The State v. Taus Khan (2001 SCMR 1416) Muhammad Ishaque v. The State (1971 SCMR 616) Ali Ahmad v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 201) Sultan Khan v. Sher Khan (PLD 1991 SC 520) The Police Rules, 1934, Volume III, Chapter XXII