' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this criminal revision under sections 435/439, Cr.P.C. The petitioner accused has challenged the judgment dated 29-6-2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chiniot, whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 320, P.P.C. And sentenced to 3 years' R.I. Along with Diyat amounting to Rs.2,90,372 and in case of non-payment of amount of Diyat, the petitioner was to be kept in jail. The amount of Diyat if realized, was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also given to the accused.
Against the said judgment, an appeal was filed by Ghulam Rasool, the petitioner, whereas Tahir Ali, complainant had also filed revision petition for enhancement of sentence, which were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot through consolidated judgment dated 29-10- 2005, which is also being assailed through this revision.
2.
The Brief facts of the prosecution case as alleged in the F.I.R. Are that during the night between 24/25-7-2002 at 11-30 p.m., Tahir Ali complainant along with his deceased brother Dr. Ajmal went on motorcycle bearing Registration No.FDP-9005 Honda CD-70 to the house of Tahir Mehmood, where they came to know by some inmate that he along with Malik Sarfraz was sitting at the tea- shop situated at Satelite Town, Faisalabad Morre, Chiniot. Thereupon they proceeded to tea-shop and met the said persons. After a shortwhile, Dr. Ajmal deceased started his motorcycle and moved to Faisalabad Road. All of asudden a Daewoo Bus bearing Registration No.LRC 1671, being driven rashly and negligently by Ghulam Rasool petitioner, whose name was disclosed later on, collided with the Motorcycle of Dr. Ajmal and as a result thereof, the brother (Doctor) of the complainant fell at some distance and the Motorcyle was completely damaged having been pushed by the Bus. Dr. Ajmal had succumbed to injuries at the spot. In the meanwhile Tahir and Sarfraz P. Ws. Also reached at the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Hence, the F.I.R.
3. After completion of investigation, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted in the Court and copies of the documents required under section 241-A Cr.P.C. Were delivered to the accused petitioner. Then charge was framed which was denied by the petitioner and the prosecution in order to prove his guilt produced as many as nine witnesses. First information Report Exh.P.1 was got recorded at police station on 25-7-2002 under section 322, P.P.C. By Tahir Ali, complainant who appeared as P.W.1 at the trial and reiterated the story narrated in the F.I.R. Tahir Ali P.W.1 was eye- witness and remaining witnesses are formal except P.W.4 Zulfiqar Ahmad, Mechanic, who examined the Bus in question and P.W.6 Dr. Saif-ullah Barral, who conducted postmortem of the deceased, whereas Ghulam Murtaza, S.-I appeared as P.W.7, who conducted the investigation initially and subsequently, Muhammad Akram, S.-I/ P.W.8 had partly conducted the investigation of the case. The petitioner accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations and claimed that Bus was not driven rashly and negligently. His version in verbatim is reproduced as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' However, he did not produce any evidence in defence nor he opted to make statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. On conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid by the learned trial Magistrate and appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge through the impugned judgment.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Bus was not being driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently, hence the accused petitioner cannot be punished under section 320, P.P.C. In such circumstances; that the site-plan shows that the deceased had met the accident on the road when he was driving the motorcycle on wrong side; that there are contradictions in the statements of witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove their case against the petitioner accused beyond any shadow of doubt; that the occurrence had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased, who had come at the road suddenly without seeing the Bus, which was coming on the right side in normal speed and the petitioner was not at fault. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:- ' Ghulam Mustafa v. The State (2004 riCr.LJ 1869), Muhammad Bakhsh v. The State (1976 PCr.LJ 405), Mushtaq alias Niku v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 158) and Muhammad Akhtar v. The State (1980 PCr.LJ 103).
' It is also' contended that driving the vehicle at high speed alone was not sufficient to hold that the accident was committed due to negligence of the driver.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgments of Courts below and evidence attached with this petition.
6. Tahir Ali, complainant P.W.1 appeared and got recorded his statement immediately after incident under section 154, Cr.P.C. Before the police, in which he disclosed the name of the petitioner as driver of the said Bus, which collided with motorcycle of Dr. Ajmal Zulfiqar Ali, Mechanic appeared as P.W.4, who stated that on inspection of Bus, he found the same in proper condition. However, its front screen was damaged and there was dent on the first Bumper, which provides corroboration to the prosecution version that the bus had collided with the motorcycle from the front side.
Admittedly, the petitioner was driving the bus at the time of the occurrence. The defence version that the occurrence had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased, who was driving the motorcycle, is not borne out from the evidence on record. According to .The Doctor P.W.6, the duration between the injuries and medical examination was about half an hour, which clearly suggests the presence of P.Ws. At the spot. The petitioner had failed to examine even a single passenger of the bus that the occurrence had taken place due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider. Both the Courts below have come to the concurrent findings that the accident took place due to the negligence of the petitioner and have rightly convicted and sentenced him under section 320, P.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading or non- reading of any material evidence on the part of the learned Courts below in arriving at the conclusion of holding the petitioner guilty. Reappraisal of evidence is not the purpose of the revisional jurisdiction. I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments, which have been passed on the basis of the evidence on record. The prosecution case is that the motorcycle was dragged by the bus being driven by the present petitioner at some distance, which shows that the brake was not applied timely and the occurrence had taken place due to the negligence of the petitioner. Moreover, it was also suggested to P.W.5 that the accident had taken place due to the failure of hydraulic brake of bus, which also leads support to the prosecution version that the petitioner was responsible for the occurrence. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Ghulam Mustafa's case (2004 PCr.LJ 1869) supra the identity of the driver was doubtful, while in Mushtaq alias Niku's case (1998 PCr.LJ 158) the deceased was found to have been driving the motorcycle with two extra passengers against the law, which allows only one person in addition to the driver and in Muhammad Akhtar's case (1980 PCr.LJ 103), the deceased was observed to be abnormal, whereas in Muhammad Bakhsh's case (1976 PCr.LJ 405), the scooter of the deceased was dashed with the rear body of the truck.
In view of what has been discussed above, I am satisfied with the findings of both the Courts below which were given in the impugned judgments and the Courts below had rightly passed the impugned judgments. Consequently, this revision petition being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed in limine.
Revision .