' AGHA RAFIQ AHMED KHAN, J.-- This criminal appeal has been filed by appellant Naseer Khan, under section 410 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the, judgment, dated 18th December, 2002 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi in Sessions Case No,194 of 1994 whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer R.I. For five years and imposed the amount of Diyat in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 under section 320, P.P.C.
2. The facts leading to this appeal are that on 24-10-1991 on the road outside Malir City Police Station one Mazda mini bus bearing Registration No,JE-2545, allegedly driven by the present appellant in high speed hit one old man, namely, Muhammad Hassan, who was crossing the road.
He received injuries and was sent to Jinnah Hospital where he expired. A.S.-I. Aurangzeb, Duty Officer of Malir City Police Station after receiving message from M.L.O., Jinnah Hospital, Karachi went to the said hospital where injured Muhammad Hassan had already expired and was lying in the Emergency Ward. He completed proceedings under section 174, Cr.P.C. And reached the place of Wardat and ascertained the facts from the witnesses. Thereafter, he registered a case on behalf of the State and arrested the present appellant on 26-10-1991. He also sent the mini bus to Motor Vehicle Inspector and after completing investigation he challaned the accused/appellant in the Court.
3. Charge was framed on 16-2-1992 against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution examined P.Ws. P.C. Tanvir Ahmed as Exhibit.5, P.C. Muhammad Khan as Exhibit.8, Zafar as Exhibit.10, and complainant/Investigating Officer, A.S.-I. Aurangzeb, as Exhibit.12. Appellant's statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded as Exhibit.14 in which he had denied his involvement in the case and had stated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case.
4. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, after considering the evidence on record, found the appellant guilty of the offence for which he was charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above.
5. Mr. Amanullah Khattak, Advocate for the appellant, has argued that the trial Court has erred in law to appreciate the testimony of P.Ws. Tanvir Ahmed and Muhammad Khattak who are both police constables and subordinates to the Investigating Officer of this case. Apart from the above witnesses there is no independent eye-witness of the incident. There are major contradictions in the evidence of both these witnesses and Investigating Officer of the case, namely, A.S.-I.
Aurangzeb in the F.I.R. Has given some other registration number of mini bus but the mini bus sent to the Motor Vehicle Inspector is different. Therefore, the case has become doubtful and conviction cannot be based on this evidence.
6. Mr. Munir Bux Bhutto, learned counsel for the State, has fully supported the judgment passed by the trial Court and has argued that prosecution has established guilt of the appellant and the witnesses have fully implicated him in this crime.
7. I have considered the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence recorded in the trial Court and the impugned judgment.
8. P.W. P.C. Tanvir Ahmed, Exhibit.5, has deposed that he was sitting outside the police station when he saw one Mazda bus, bearing Registration No,JE-2545 coming rashly and negligently and in the course of overtaking a bus it hit one old man who was crossing the road. According to him, the driver of the said Mazda bus was arrested on the spot and they took him as well as the Mini Bus No,JE-2545 to Malir City Police Station where A.S.-I. Aurangzeb was present who arrested the driver, namely, Naseer Khan. P.W. P.C. Muhammad Khan, Exhibit.8, has given almost the same statement in the Court and has deposed that they had arrested the driver on the spot on 24-10-1991 and had brought him and the mini bus to Malir City Police Station. Complainant/A.S.-I. Aurangzeb, who at the same is Investigating Officer of the case also, in his deposition, Exhibit.12, has given a totally different story of the incident. According to him, he arrested the appellant on 20-10-1991 in presence of Mashirs vide Mashirnama Exhibit.6. The Mashirnama shows that the appellant was produced at Malir City Police Station on 26-10-1991 by Jehanzeb Khan. According to the witnesses P.C. Tanvir and P.C. Muhammad Khan, the mini bus involved in the accident, bearing No,JE-2545 of Route "D", was produced at Malir City Police Station after the accident which was also sent to Motor Vehicle Inspector but in the F.I.R. It is mentioned that Mini Bus No,JE-2545 was produced at the said police station.
9. These are major contradictions in the prosecution case which has created doubt in my mind as to whether the present appellant was arrested from the spot on the day of incidence i,e, 24-10-1991 or whether some other person was arrested on the said date and was let off subsequently by police and thereafter the present appellant was involved in this case on 26-10-1991.
10. For these reasons I am of the considered opinion that the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt. Therefore, I allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Malir, dated 18th December, 2002, and acquit the appellant from this case. He is present on bail and his bail bond stands discharged. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.