Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS Respondent: STATEHonorable Justice Muhammad Munir KhanCh. Abdur Rehman Cheema,Begum Naseem Gul Sher
1991 M L D 1432
1991 M L D 1432
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN---Petitioner
versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Revision No.4 of 1983, heard on 2nd March, 1991.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 304-A---Appreciation of evidence---People generally do occupy the foot board of the bus against the wish of the conductor and are not prepared to listen to anyone---Failure of duty for the safety of passengers does not constitute an offence punishable under S.304-A, P.P.C: -Drivers of the buses which had collided had already been acquitted and instead accused (conductor) had been convicted and sentenced under S.304-A, P.P.C.---Accused was acquitted in circumstances.
Ch. Abdur Rehman Cheema for Appellant.
Begum Naseem Gul Sher for the State.
Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1991.
JUDGMENT
Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner, Muhammad Shat and Khushi Muhammad were tried under section 304, P.P.C. for causing the death of Tariq Mahmood by rash and negligent driving.
2. The petitioner was a conductor of a bus. Muhammad Shafi and Khushi Muhammad were drivers of two different buses. At the time of accident, Tariq Mahmood was standing on the footboard of the bus of which the petitioner was the conductor. There was collision of the two buses driven by the two co-accused as a result whereof Tariq Mahmood lost his life. On the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner and the two drivers were convicted under section 304, P.P.C. and sentenced to four years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default thereof six months' R.I. each. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the two drivers but maintained the conviction of the petitioner under section 304-A, P.P.C. and reduced the sentence to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default thereof six months' R.1. The learned Appellate Court was of the view that the petitioner being the conductor of the bus was responsible for the safety of the passengers and he fully knew that the passengers standing on the footboard could meet the accident at any time, so he failed to perform his duty and did not take proper care and caution before giving signal to Muhammad Shafi driver for moving the bus.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not the driver of the bus, so he could not be convicted for causing the death of Tariq Mahmood by rash and negligent driving. The learned counsel for the State has opposed him.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that it is a matter o; common experience that the people do occupy the footboard against the wishes of the conductors and they are not prepared to listen to any one. Furthermore, failure of duty for the safety of the passengers does not constitute an offence punishable under section 304-A, P.P.C. The drivers of the buses, which have collided, have been acquitted, instead the conductor has been convicted and sentenced, as stated above.
5. For what has been said above, this revision is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of his bail bond.
N.H.Q./M-2902/L Revision accepted.
1991 M L D 1433
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
JAVED alias JAIDI---Petitioner
versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Revision No.182 of 1990, heard on 30th March, 1991.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 307 & 324---Appreciation of evidence---None of the injuries found on the person of injured witness was declared by the Doctor either dangerous to life or grievous---Accused, therefore, could not have been convicted under 5.307, P.P.C. on the basis of large number of injuries ---Conviction -of accused under S.307, P.P.C. was consequently set aside and instead he was convicted under S.324, P.P.C. and his sentence was reduced accordingly.
Ahmed Saeed Kirmani for Appellant.
M. Iqbal for the State.
Date of hearing: 30th March, 1991.
JUDGMENT
Javed alias Jaidi petitioner stands convicted under section 307; P.P.C. for murderous assault on Zubair Ahmad. P.W, and sentenced to 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof 3 months R.I.
2. Admitting the criminal liability of the petitioner for the injuries found on the person of Zubair Ahmad P.W. the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the nature of the offence on the ground that since neither the doctor had declared, any of the injuries found on the person of Zubair Ahmad P.W. dangerous to life nor the same were declared grievous so the petitioner, cannot be convicted under section 307, P.P,C,. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the ground that the petitioner had inflicted as many as 12 injuries on the person of the victim with sharp-edged weapon.
3. I have considered, the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that since the doctor has not stated that the injuries or one of the injuries found on the person of the injured were/was dangerous to life or grievous, so, the petitioner could not have been convicted under section 307, P.P.C. on the basis of the number of the injuries i.e. 12. So, the conviction of the petitioner under section 307, P.P.C. is set aside. Instead, he is convicted under section 324, P.P.C.
4. This brings me to the question of sentence. I have considered this question with utmost care. I find that the petitioner was arrested on 17-1-1986 and was released on bail on 16-7-1986 by, the trial Court. He was convicted on 26-8-1987 and was taken into custody. The sentence was not suspended by the Appellate Court. The appeal was' dismissed on 20-1-1990, and thereafter, he was released on bail by this Court in this revision on 4-8-1990 and as such he remained for about one year and two months in- jail. Zubair Ahmad P.W. had suffered 12 injuries out of which 10 injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon. Some of the injuries were on the vital part of his body. In these circumstances, I feel that the sentence of two years' R.I. would meet the case. He will get benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The fine imposed by v the trial Court and the sentence in lieu thereof is maintained. The petitioner, will surrender himself before the trial Court within two weeks. On his failure, the trial Court shall issue warrants for his arrest: On his arrest he will be sent to jail to serve out the sentence.
N.H.Q./J-212/L Order accordingly.