Summary: (a) Law of Torts—Negligence—Res Ipsa Loquitur—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9—West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, S. 67 r/w Thirteenth ScheduleClaim for damages arising from a road accident involving a passenger bus—Plaintiffs sought damages amounting to Rs. 100 million alleging negligence on part of the bus company and mechanical defects in the vehicle—Trial Court partly decreed claim under Motor Vehicles Ordinance awarding Rs. 140,000 and Rs. 40,000 to two plaintiffs—Plaintiffs appealed seeking higher compensation—Held, doctrine of res ipsa loquitur not attracted where no conclusive proof of negligence was brought forth—Plaintiffs failed to substantiate their specific allegation of mechanical failure with expert or documentary evidence—Defendant rebutted inference of negligence by producing bus driver, hostess, terminal manager, and maintenance head as witnesses, all confirming fitness of vehicle and attributing accident to fault of third-party vehicle—Maxim res ipsa loquitur merely permits inference of negligence and does not create conclusive presumption—Burden remained on plaintiffs to prove actionable fault, which they failed to discharge—Appeal dismissed.----Cited Cases:• Mst. Kamina v. Al-Amin Goods Transport Agency 1992 SCMR 1715• Pakistan Steel Mills Corp. Ltd. v. Malik Abdul Habib 1993 SCMR 848• Brown v. Rolls Royce Ltd. [1960] 1 All ER 577• Pakistan Television Corp. v. Noor Sanat Shah 2023 SCMR 616• Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind v. Election Tribunal PLD 2020 SC 137**(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9—Jurisdiction of civil court—Claim under tort—Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, inapplicable in Punjab—Held, while no specific statutory remedy exists in Punjab for recovery of tortious damages, civil court jurisdiction under S. 9 CPC remains intact—Mere absence of codified tort law in Punjab does not oust civil court jurisdiction—Plaintiffs could file suit in tort; however, successful invocation required proof of breach of legally protected rights coupled with proximate causation, which was absent in instant case.----Cited Cases:• SNGPL v. Noor CNG Filling Station 2022 SCMR 1501• Keramat Ali v. Muhammad Yunus Haji PLD 1963 SC 191• Abbasia Cooperative Bank v. Hakeem Rafiz Ghaus PLD 1997 SC 3**(c) Evidence Act (1872), Ss. 101–103—Burden of proof—Civil suit for damages—Claim for special damages requires specific pleading and proof—Plaintiffs failed to produce expert testimony, maintenance records, or credible mechanical evidence—Most documents produced were exhibited through counsel’s statement, depriving opposing party of right to cross-examine—Held, such documents inadmissible as per settled law—Trial court rightly disregarded them—No interference warranted in impugned judgment.----Cited Cases:• Rustam v. Jehangir 2023 SCMR 730• Akhtar Sultana v. Major (R) Muzaffar Khan PLD 2021 SC 715• Manzoor Hussain v. Misri Khan PLD 2020 SC 749• Hameeda Begum v. Irshad Begum 2007 SCMR 996**(d) Jurisprudence—Compassion versus Law—Relief—Courts are bound to adjudicate according to law, not based on subjective sympathy—Despite severe trauma and lifelong disability of Plaintiff No. 1, liability cannot be imposed on mere hardship or misfortune in absence of proven negligence—Held, relief cannot be granted merely on compassionate grounds in disregard of legal standards of evidence and liability.----Cited Cases:• Sundas v. Khyber Medical University 2024 SCMR 46• Superintendent of Police v. Ijaz Aslam 2024 SCMR 1831• POSCO International Corp. v. RIKANS International PLD 2023 LHR 116

Summary: (a) Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 – Negligence – Vicarious Liability: ----Suit for damages filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 by the legal heirs of two deceased individuals who lost their lives in a road accident caused by the negligent driving of a dumper truck by Defendant No.1 (Driver) – Defendant No.1, while operating a heavy vehicle with only an LTV license, negligently collided with a motorcycle, causing the death of both riders – Defendant No.2 (Owner) permitted the Driver to operate the vehicle despite his lack of qualification, thereby making him vicariously liable – Plaintiffs sought damages amounting to Rs. 50,400,000/-. (b) Burden of Proof – Application of "Res Ipsa Loquitur": ----Plaintiffs successfully established the factum of the accident – Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, once the accident was proven, the burden shifted upon the Defendants to disprove negligence – Defendants failed to appear in civil proceedings despite participating in related criminal proceedings – The absence of cross-examination on the Plaintiffs' evidence led to an adverse presumption against the Defendants under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 – Factum of accident held to be established. Cited Cases: • Najma Parveen v. Karachi Transport Corporation (2004 MLD 518) • Ehteshamuddin Qureshi v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (2004 MLD 361) • Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. v. Malik Abdul Habib (1993 SCMR 848) • Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Zahid Afzal (2006 SCMR 207) (c) Composite Negligence – Liability of Vehicle Owner: ----Owner of the vehicle held jointly and severally liable with the Driver under the doctrine of composite negligence – As the vehicle was negligently entrusted to an unqualified driver, the Owner became liable for damages arising from his actions – Supreme Court precedent confirmed that a master is liable for the tortious acts of his servant within the scope of employment – Both Defendants ordered to pay damages jointly and severally. Cited Cases: • National Logistics Cell v. Irfan Khan (2015 SCMR 1406) • Pakistan Railways v. Abdul Haqique (1991 SCMR 657) (d) Computation of Damages – Life Expectancy – Loss of Earning Capacity: ----Court computed damages based on the victims' assumed life expectancy of 65 years – Victim No.1’s monthly income taken as Rs.50,000, and damages calculated for remaining 32 years – Victim No.2’s earnings were estimated post-majority at the same rate, resulting in total damages of Rs.47,400,000/- – Defendants ordered to pay additional markup at 15% per annum from the date of suit till realization – Decretal amount to be distributed among legal heirs as per Shariah law. ----Disposition: Suit decreed. Defendants held jointly and severally liable for damages, with markup at 15% per annum until realization.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 297, 320 & 427---Causing death by rash and negligent driving and causing damage to property---Appreciation of evidence---Necessary witness---Evidence non-recording of---Four persons lost their lives in an accident between a truck and a trailer---Accused was convicted for driving rash and negligently which resulted into death of four persons---Validity--- Prosecution was duty bound to prove rash and negligent driving by leading independent and cogent evidence---Prosecution failed to record statements of cleaners of trailer and truck--- Evidence of no eye-witness of the occurrence was recorded to prove rash and negligent driving---Trailer and truck were not examined by Motor Vehicle Examiner to ascertain their speed and brakes to fix liability on driver of trailer or truck---Merely saying that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving was not enough to substantiate allegations levelled against accused---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Yasir Arafat v. The State and another 2012 MLD 611 and Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 rel.

Summary: Bail Granted ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 498--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 279, 337-G, 427, 302 & 34---Rashdriving or riding on a public way, hurt by rash or negligent driving, mischiefcausing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, qatl-i-amd and common intention---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Dishonest improvements---Scope---Prosecution case wasthat accused hit the complainant and his friends with his car while they were onmotorcycle as a result of which one of the friends of complainant died on the nextday---Other friend of complainant got recorded his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.wherein he stated that the accused had intentionally the motorcycle thrice atdifferent points, which was done in furtherance of previous enmity---Complainant,injured and the accused hailed from the same vicinity and there could be noimpediment in the way of complainant to identify the accused if he was recognized---Accused had remained unidentified, as a result, FIR was lodged against unknownaccused alleging that he had caused injuries to the driver and riders of themotorcycle through rash and negligent driving---Improvements in the case ofprosecution were for no other purpose except to tighten the screw of the accused---Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was accepted, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Mala fide of prosecution---Scope---Pre-arrest bail isan extraordinary relief, which is to be extended in rareand exceptionalcircumstances to the accused but at the same time, one cannot lose sight of the factthat liberty of a person is one of the paramount and inalienable right guaranteedunder the Constitution, which cannot be abridged lightly---One of the primepurposes of pre-arrest bail is to prevent the mala fide prosecution of innocentpersons---Term "mala fide" is not a uniformly identified term---Being a state ofmind, the term "mala fide" cannot always be proved through direct evidence, and itis often to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser v. The State and another PLD 2021 SC 708 rel.Khair Muhammad and another v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another 2021SCMR 130 ref.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Scope---Once the Court reaches at the conclusion thatin case of dismissal of pre-arrest bail the accused would become entitled for his release on post-arrest bail then it would be mere futile exercise to send him toprison.Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another 1986 SCMR 1380; KhalilAhmed Soomro and others v. The State PLD 2017 SC 730 and Khair Muhammadand another v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another 2021 SCMR 130 ref.Syed Azmat Ali Bukhari for Petitioner with Petitioner in person.Naveed Ahmad Warraich, Deputy District Public Prosecutor with Sohail,Inspector and Kashif S.I/SHO for the State.Sardar Abdul Raziq Khan and M. Bashir Paracha for RespondentNo.2/Complainant.

Summary: Conviction upheld----In the case of Farooq Shah vs. State, heard at the Multan Bench of the Lahore High Court (PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 713 DB), the appellant, was convicted under Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, along with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The charges were related to the appellant throwing acid on the victim, Mst. Shaista Bibi, causing severe burn injuries. The court noted that both the complainant, Ashiq Hussain, and the victim, Shaista Bibi, sustained acid burn injuries, supporting their presence at the crime scene. The prosecution argued that Farooq Shah had a motive, as he had previously demanded Shaista Bibi's hand in marriage, which was refused by the complainant. The court considered the medical evidence, including the detailed examination by Dr. Allah Bakhsh and Lady Dr. Madiha Wasim, who highlighted the extensive burns on both victims. The judgment also discussed the legal aspects, emphasizing that the term "corrosive substance" in Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code has a broad interpretation, encompassing any substance that may cause harm to the human body. The court rejected the appellant's defense of false implication and affirmed the trial court's decision. Farooq Shah was sentenced to life imprisonment, along with fines and compensation, under concurrent sentences. Additionally, the court touched upon the significance of the site plan, considering it as not a substantive piece of evidence, but a tool that could be challenged if proved to be prepared on the pointation of witnesses. The injuries were deemed to fall under the third schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, justifying the application of the Act in this case. Overall, the court upheld the conviction and sentence of Farooq Shah based on the evidence presented, including medical reports and witness testimonies.

Summary: The incident in question occurred when the plaintiff's car was slightly touched by the motorbike of defendant No.1, Furqan Karim, resulting in a quarrel. Despite the compromise, defendant No.1 lodged a false FIR against the plaintiff, for various criminal offenses. The plaintiff claimed that the false FIR caused him mental torture, financial loss, and damage to his reputation. The plaintiff alleged malicious prosecution, arguing that defendant No.1 lodged a false FIR without reasonable cause, leading to harm and damages. The plaintiff sought compensation and damages for the harm suffered as a result.Defendant No.1 denied the allegations and contended that the plaintiff's car had hit his motorbike, resulting in damage. He claimed that he reported the incident truthfully and that the FIR was not lodged with malicious intent. Defendant No.3 (Province of Sindh) also filed a response denying liability. The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It concluded that defendant No.1 had lodged a false FIR against the plaintiff without reasonable and probable cause, leading to malicious prosecution. Since defendant No.1 had not challenged the police report and the judicial order, the court found that the prosecution had ended in favor of the plaintiff. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff for the harm suffered due to malicious prosecution and false accusations. It granted the plaintiff Rs. 500,000/- (Rupees Five Hundred Thousand Only) as general damages, along with 5% simple interest from the date of the decree until realization.

Summary: Bail granted----A petition filed under Section 497 Cr.P.C. seeked post-arrest bail for Israr Hussain Shah in connection with a traffic accident case. The incident occurred, involving a collision between a Toyota Hi-Ace Van, allegedly driven by Israr Hussain Shah, and a ten-wheeler troller. While the petitioner was accused of reckless driving, the document highlights that the troller driver, Muhammad Saleem, was granted post-arrest bail earlier. The court observed that the primary cause of the accident appears to be the careless approach of the troller driver. The document interpreted the relevant penal provisions and concludes that the offense under section 322 PPC is bailable, allowing for the grant of post-arrest bail. The court considered various factors, including the absence of exceptional circumstances, the nature of the offense, and the fact that the Diyat (compensation) under section 322 PPC is payable in installments. Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioner, directing his release upon furnishing bail bonds.

Summary: The case involves a petitioner, a transporter, who owns a bus allegedly involved in a road accident. The petitioner claimed that the bus was unlawfully seized by the police after the accident, and despite their efforts to retrieve it, the authorities have refused to return the vehicle. The petitioner argued that the police exceeded their authority by detaining the bus and cites Section 95 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, which limits the detention of a motor vehicle involved in an accident to 48 hours. The court examined the maintainability of the petition, emphasizing that alternative remedies should be considered but can be set aside if they prove inadequate or ineffective. The court interpreted Section 95 of the Ordinance, concluding that it is mandatory and limits the detention of a vehicle involved in an accident to 48 hours. The court rejected the reliance on Rule 22.16 of the Police Rules, 1934, stating that the Ordinance takes precedence over general laws. Additionally, it clarified that Section 516-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is not applicable since the bus does not fall under the category of property used for the commission of an offense. Ultimately, the court rules in favor of the petitioner, declaring the continued detention of the bus as unlawful and orders its immediate return.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 320, 337-A (i) (ii) (iii), 337-F, 337-G & 279---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),S.342---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120---Qatl-i-Khata, Shajjah-i-Khafifa,Shajjah-i-Hashimah, Shajjah-i-Mudihah, Ghayr-Jaifah, rash and negligent driving---Appreciation of evidence---Rash and negligent driving---Onus to prove---Plea of accused---Effect---Accused while driving a vehicle caused accident which resulted into death of threepersons---Trial Court convicted the accused for Qatl-i-Khata and causing injuries by drivingrash and negligently---Trial Court did not discuss statements of prosecution witnesses andconvicted accused on the basis of his reply to a question put to him under S. 342 Cr.P.C.---Prosecution was to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt---Judgment of TrialCourt was based on statement of accused recorded under S.342 Cr.P.C. and that on physicalexamination of the vehicle of which tie-rod was not found broken---First Information Reportwas registered on 6.1.2016 while vehicle was produced by prosecution witness in Court on3.10.2016, which remained parked with concerned police station---No report of Motormechanic was produced to prove that vehicle was checked after accident---High Courtobserved that when law had provided a thing to be done the same had to be done in thatparticular manner---Trial Court was to first discuss the case in order to come to anindependent conclusion with regard to truthfulness of prosecution witnesses then to examinestatement of accused under S. 342 Cr.P.C.---If the Court had disbelieved prosecutionevidence then it should have accepted the statement of accused as a whole with certainty---None of the ocular witnesses supported prosecution case---Mere driving in high speed didnot constitute the offence where element of negligence was lacking---High Court set asideconviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and he was acquitted of thecharge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Summary: Acquittal --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 279, 337-G & 427---Qatl-i-amd, rash driving or riding on a public way, hurtby rash and negligent driving, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that a coach and a tankervehicle had met with an accident, due to which seven passengers of the coach died on thespot and eleven were injured---Allegedly, appellant was driving the coach/bus and due to hisrash and negligent driving, coach/bus collided with oil tanker resultantly, seven passengerswere died on the spot and eleven sustained injuries---Record transpired that there was onlyone eye-witness, who stated that he was driving oil tanker when incident had taken place---Prosecution recorded the statement of said witness under S. 161, Cr.P.C. where he stated thatoil tanker had been driven by his senior while in the Trial Court stated that he himself wasdriving oil tanker at the time of incident---Said witness made dishonest improvement in hisstatement---Statement of eye-witness was recorded by Investigating Officer on the spot at 5/6p.m. while Investigating Officer remained at the place of occurrence till about 06:00 p.m.---Record transpired that FIR was lodged at 10:45 p.m. (night) which meant that investigationhad been conducted prior to registration of FIR which was not permissible under the law---Record transpired that collided bus had not been examined by the vehicle inspector norstatement of analyst was recorded in that regard to ascertain whether incident had taken placeby over-speeding or mechanical fault---Prosecution was bound to prove over-speeding or thatthe driver was guilty of driving rashly and negligently, but no such evidence was availableon the record---Mere driving vehicle on high speed did not constitute offence---No evidencewas available on record to show that at what speed the driver was driving the bus---Although, appellant in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. admitted that he was driving thevehicle, but denied rashly or negligently---Statement of accused/appellant under S. 342,Cr.P.C., could be taken in toto not in peace meal---Prosecution must prove his case withcogent, confidence inspiring evidence that the appellant was driving negligently, which waslacking---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction andsentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.