' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---Appellant Azim Khan was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Swat, for having on 25-2-2003, caused the death of Samiullah and injuries to Aftab Khan, Sujawat Khan and Akhtar Javed, by rash and negligent driving. At the conclusion of trial, vide judgment dated 18-10-2004, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:--
(A) Under section 302(c),P.P.C. To suffer 15 years' R.I. And to pay amount of Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of Samiullah deceased or in default thereof to undergo six months S I.
(B) Under section 324, P.P.C. To suffer five years' R.I. Plus fine of Rs,10,000. In addition, the appellant was directed to pay 1/2 Diyat as `Arsh' to injured Sujawat Khan and Rs,20,000 as compensation or in default to undergo one month and two months imprisonment respectively.
(C) Under section 324, P.P.C. To suffer two years' R.I. And Rs,10,000 as tine, for causing `Shuja Khafifa' to injured Aftab Khan. The appellant was also convicted removed to the hospital. Samiullah under section 337-A(i) for one year R.I. And Rs,10,000 as 'Daman' In addition under section 337-F(i) and Rs,5,000 as 'Daman', plus Rs,10,000 as compensation or in default to undergo 1/1 month S.I. And under section 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 to three years' R.I. And under section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Ordinance to Rs,1,000 as fine or in default to suffer 15 days S.I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently, with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. However, the appellant was extended benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge of causing injuries to Javed Akhtar.
2. The impugned judgment has been assailed before this Court vide Criminal Appeal No,879 of 2004.
3. The facts which I have been able to gather from the record of the case in brief are that on the fateful day i,e, 25-2-2003 complainant Fazle Ahad accompanied by Samiullah, Aftab Khan and Sujwat Khan, residents of Barikot, was on the way back to his village. When they reached near the Maternity Hospital, Shahi Road, at about 2300 hours, a speeding Land Cruiser, red in colour, bearing Registration No,LOH-2662, coming from Landakay side, hit Samiullah, Aftab Khan and Sujawat Khan. The Land Cruiser also hit Javed Akhtar. The injured were removed to the hospital. Samiullah succumbed to the injuries. The driver of the vehicle was claimed to have been recognized in the light of torch and in the light of a vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The accident was stated to be the result of careless and negligent driving of the appellant. A number of persons- were shown to have witnessed the incident.
4. A.S.I. Aziz-ur-Rehman (P.W.14), Police Post, Barikot, recorded the report at the instance of complainant Fazle Ahad, (P.W.13), maternal uncle of Samiullah deceased. He prepared injury sheets, site plan and recorded statements of prosecution witnesses. The accused was arrested by District Mobile Police on 26-2-2003. The Land Cruiser in question was taken into custody and sent to Motor Vehicle Examiner, Barikot for examination. In the opinion of the examiner, accident was not the result of any mechanical fault. The accused was also referred to the medical officer to ascertain whether he had taken alcohol at the time of driving or not. The samples of his stomach wash, blood and urine were obtained and sent to the Chemical Examiner, F.S.L. Vehemently contended that the trial Court Peshawar. According to report of the Examiner, alcohol was found present in the samples. After finalization of investigation, complete challan was submitted in Court on 27-4-2003 by Javed Khan P.W.15, the then S.H.O. Police Station, Ghaligay, District Swat.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case and substantiate the charges, produced as many as 15 witnesses, including the medical officers, the police officials who investigated the case and the eyewitnesses. The accused in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to have been falsely charged at the behest of the complainant party. The accused led no evidence in his defence.
6. At the conclusion of trial, the appellant found guilty of causing death of Samiullah and injuries to Aftab Khan and Sujawat Khan, was convicted and sentenced as mentioned and detailed above.
7. Mr. Asadullah Khan Chamkani, Advocate, in support of the appeal, vehemently contended that the trial Court has not appreciated properly the evidence on file; that the conclusion of the trial Court on all crucial features of the case are imaginary and speculative, rather than on solid tenable evidence; that there is contradiction between the statements of all the prosecution witnesses and create doubts in the prosecution case; that learned trial Court instead of extending benefit of doubt to the appellant has extended the same in favour of prosecution; that the medical evidence does not support the ocular version and that there is no evidence at all to show that the appellant was responsible for driving rashly and negligently and the entire prosecution case is false and unbelievable.
8. On the other hand Mr.Naqeebullah Takar, Advocate, representing the State assisted by Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Advocate for the complainant, fully supported the impugned judgment contending that the trial Court appraised the evidence existing on the record thoroughly and the impugned judgment is based on correct application of law and proper evaluation of evidence and merits no interference.
9. The arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been considered in the light of the material on record and the case-law cited at the bar.
10. It stands established from the material on file that on the night of occurrence, appellant while drunk and having no driving licence, drove his Land Cruiser carelessly and negligently, as a result of which Samiullah, a young man of 21/22 years of age was crushed to death, whereas Aftab Khan and Sujawat Khan sustained serious injuries. Sujawat Khan was also deprived of a leg for the rest of his life. The report of Motor Vehicle Examiner reveals that the vehicle in question was in a perfect condition and the accident was not the result of any mechanical fault. The report of Chemical Examiner F.S.L. Peshawar also confirms that alcohol was present in the samples i,e, Stomach wash blood and urine, obtained from the appellant. There is ample evidence on record direct and circumstantial to show that appellant was responsible for driving negligently and carelessly, which resulted in to a road accident, causing death of one person and injuries to others. There appears to be no reason for the eye-witnesses and the injured to suppress true facts and thus the testimony of the eye-witnesses and injured being free from any exaggeration and doubt would be confidence-inspiring to be believed without looking for any other corroboration. There is no enmity between the appellant and the deceased or the P.Ws. Brought on record for false implication. In absence of any enmity and having no motive to falsely involve the appellant in the case, the question of false B charge does not arise. The eye-witnesses and the injured having deposed in line to the statement of complainant have categorically supported the prosecution version and charged the appellant. They faced the test of lengthy and searching cross-examination successfully. Their statements could not be shattered. The defence has failed to extract any material C discrepancies or contradictions from the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The finding of the trial Court could not be shown to have been passed on misreading and non-reading of evidence. The trial Court appraised the evidence existing on the record thoroughly and the judgment is based on correct application of law and proper evaluation of evidence. The mere assertion of learned counsel for the appellant that except bare allegations in the F.I.R., there is nothing incriminating on record which could connect the appellant with the guilt, without a positive attempt on his part to substantiate the same is of no consequence. The act of causing death of a young man of 21/22 years of age and depriving the other of a leg for the rest of his life by negligent and careless driving, under the spell of alcohol and without driving licence would not permit to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence. I, therefore, in the light of the above, while maintaining the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant, dismiss this appeal.