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: 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: In order to constitute offences under section 279 and 320 PPC it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that besides over speed driving accused was also guilty of driving rashly and negligently. There is no scope and space for surmises and conjectures even with high presumptions,

Summary: Bail Allowed---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 426---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 320/337-G/279---Qatl-e-khata by rash ornegligent driving, hurt by rash or negligent driving, rash driving or riding on a public way,--Suspension of sentence---Release on bail to facilitate accused in payment of diyat and damanamount---Possibility of compromise---Accused was convicted and sentenced for 10 yearsimprisonment in addition to payment of diyat and daman---Death caused by rash andnegligent driving was qatl-ekhata under 5.320, P. P. C., which was bailable andcompoundable---Financial position of accused was weak and therefore he was unable to paythe diyat and daman amount in lump sum---Arranging a huge amount would not be possiblefor the accused while remaining behind bars---Release of accused would practically facilitatepayment of diyat and daman amount---In case of release of accused on bail, there was alsothe possibility of compromise between parties, which could be better for keeping harmonyand cordial relations between them in future---Application was allowed, operation ofsentence was suspended and accused was released on bail.

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