KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.- This judgment will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2002 directed against the judgment dated 3.12.2002 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against conviction and sentence awarded to him by the learned Magistrate Section-30 in a case registered under section 320 PPC i.e. Four year R.I. With diyat vide this judgment dated 23.7.2002 and Criminal Misc. No. 427-M/2003 filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C, for enhancement of sentence.
2. The prosecution story briefly stated in the FIR on the statement of Muhammad Shafique complainant is that his deceased brother Abdul Jabbar was going on motorcycle when the same was struck by Tractor No.3906/A.K which was allegedly negligently and rashly driven by the petitioner who died on the way while he was being transported to the Hospital.
3. After getting information about the occurrence the local police completed all the necessary formalities and thereafter Faizullah ASI along with his subordinates proceeded to the spot. He prepared the rough site plan Exh.PF and took into possession the motorcycle vide memo. Exh.PE and that of Tractor vide memo Exh.PG. Ultimately he completed the investigation and challaned the appellant.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 7 witnesses including Investigating Officer, Doctor, eye-witnesses and other formal and relevant witnesses. Thereafter statement of the accused petitioner was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C, in which he pleaded his innocence. Learned Trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution and hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner. The appeal was filed against the conviction and sentence by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar which was also dismissed.
Hence this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that Muhammad Shafique complainant PW is the real brother of the deceased Abdul Jabbar and Haji Muhammad Hussain PW is from their brotherhood, that if the complainant was coming from the same side from where the deceased was coming then the complainant should have come on the motorcycle of the deceased and not on foot that both the eye-witnesses are chance witnesses and in fact they were not present at the spot. They were imported later on after the occurrence, that the contention of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court was that he was not driving the Tractor but one Fazal was driving the same, that two PWs were also produced by the petitioner who have supported the version of the petitioner, that petitioner was not driving the Tractor. Learned counsel submits that one Lutafullah lamberdar mentioned during the trial by the eye-witnesses is inimical towards the father of the petitioner because there was dispute of lamberdari between both of them and the case has been registered at the behest of Lutaf-Ullah against the petitioner, that an FIR was also registered against Lutaf-Ullah in Police Station Bhakkar, that no case is made out against the petitioner and he is entitled to acquittal.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant who has also filed a Criminal Misc. No. 427- M/2003 in which notice has also been issued to the petitioner submits that both the eye- witnesses are independent having no grudge or enmity against the petitioner. Occurrence is admitted. The only contention which was alleged by the petitioner is that Fazal was driving the Tractor but this has not been mentioned by the petitioner in his statement recorded under section
342. Cr.P.C., that both the defence witnesses did not appear before the police during the course of investigation, that no reason has been given by the learned Trail Court or by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and the revision filed by the complainant for not enhancing the sentence of the convict.
6-A. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record available on the file. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 23.9.1999 at Shamwela, matter reported to the police at 9.50 p.m. And that the-petitioner was named in the FIR with Tractor number which was driven by him. Names of the eye-witnesses were also mentioned therein, there was no background of enmity between the parties. Though Muhammad Shafique real brother of the deceased Abdul Jabbar but he cannot be termed as an interested witness as he had no enmity with the petitioner. Haji Muhammad Hussain PW-2 is not related to the deceased or the complainant. Petitioner has admitted his presence at the spot during the trial but with a little difference, that Tractor was being driven by one Fazal and he was sitting on the Mudguard of the Tractor but in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C, he has not given this explanation.
He even did not produce any driving licence either during the course of investigation or before the learned Trial Court while making this statement under section 342. Cr.P.C, so it means that he was not having any driving licence. There was no reason on the part of the two eye-witnesses to depose falsely against the present petitioner. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court and that order was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge through appeal which was also dismissed so this revision was filed against that order. No law point has been raised in the instant revision petition. Even PW-5 Muhammad Boota Mechanic had also stated that motorcycle hab struck on the front of the Tractor. From the perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner had no license but he was driving the Tractor. Neither the learned Trial Court nor the Appellate Court has given any reason for awarding lesser sentence. Death of the deceased by way of accident was not denied so if the post-mortem was not conducted it does not damage the case of the prosecution. Reliance is placed on PLD 1998 SC 1778.
7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed.
8. As no sound reasons have been given by the learned Trial Court while awarding lesser sentence and also by the learned lower Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal-of the petitioner and revision of the complainant, ln this case a young man has been murdered due to negligent and rash driving by the convict and that too without license. Ln my view it is a case in which maximum sentence should have been awarded to the accused so while relying on the dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Haji Sher Hussein Khan vs. Hidayatullah and another (1996 SCM R 1476) I enhance the sentence awarded to the petitioner convict by the learned Trial Court from 4 year to 10 years R.I. With the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The sentence of diyat amount is also maintained.