' This petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order was filed by the petitioner to call in question the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate, dated 11-10-1980 (Annexure 'C') whereby respondent No, 3 was acquitted and the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated Lahore 18-11-1980 (Annexure 'F') dismissing petitioner's revision petition against the judgment of acquittal.
2. Facts, briefly stated, are that Maqsood Ahmad respondent No, 3 was challaned in a case under section 279/337/304-A, P.P.C. On the allegation that he while driving a wagon No, 1598/RIF, in a rash and negligent manner on 29-6-1978 struck the same against a car No, 5653/LEE belonging to Ghulam Rasul petitioner which at that time was being driven by the petitioner's driver Abdul Sattar, P.W. And as a result of this accident, petitioner's wife Mst. Gul Bano who was sitting on the back seat of the car at the relevant time received injuries and later on died in the hospital on the same day.
3. Respondent was put on trial to face the aforesaid charge. Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. 2 witnesses namely Asghar Ali and Muhammad Usman, H.C. Were given up by the prosecution as unnecessary. P.W. 1 who was an eye-witness was declared hostile at the request of the prosecutor. He was subjected to cross-examination but according to the learned trial Magistrate "nothing favourable to the prosecution could be ascertained from him". Abdul Sattar P.W. 2, who lodged the report with the police deposed that at time of the occurrence, a lot of persons were present on the spot and out of them 2 persons Malik Nazirul Islam resident of Bhati Gate and Muhammad Azam resident of Kacha Ravi Road were known to him and these two persons took him to C.M.H. In cross-examination, this witness stated that 'Thanedar' did not ask about the number of person present on the spot and that he did not tell the police that Malik Nazirul Islam and Muhammad Azam were present there. This witness had deposed that he knew the accused i.e, respondent No, 3 before the occurrence but he was confronted with his previous statement Exh. P.E. In which it was clearly stated that he came to know the name of the accused later. He also stated that he did not tell the names of Nisar and Asghar Ali P.Ws. To the police and that the police recorded their names suo motu.
4. P.W. 3 Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad who had medically examined Mst. Gul Bano stated in reply to Court question that excepting injury No, 5, other 4 injuries collectively and injury No, 4 individually could be fatal. He, however, admitted in cross-examination that he did not record his opinion which he gave in evidence in reply to the Court question.
5. Muhammad Saeed, A.S.-I., who conducted the investigation of the case appeared as P.W. 4 and stated, inter alia, that according to his investigation, there were two eye-witnesses namely Asghar and Nisar other than the complainant. He admitted that in the inspection note prepared by him, he did not mention the injuries of the accused or of Abdul Sattar complainant. He further stated that injured complainant and the accused were not present on the spot and that the accused appeared before him at 3.00 p.m. He admitted that the complainant had stated that he came to know the name of the accused Maqsood later on.
6. Dr. Muhammad Nazir who medically examined Abdul Sattar complainant and Maqsood Ahmad accused appeared as P.W. 5 and stated that on the day of the occurrence at 5-30 p.m., he examined Maqsood Ahmad who complained of pain at two places on his body. In cross- examination, this witness stated that there was no apparent injury on the person of Maqsood Ahmad accused.
' On the close of the prosecution case, respondent No, 3 was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C.
And he pleaded not guilty to the charge.
7. Learned trial Court after through and elaborate appreciation of the evidence came to conclusion that the prosecution case rested on the sole testimony of Abdul Sattar complainant who was an interested witness and whose evidence was discrepant with his previous statement Exh. P.E.
Learned trial Court took particular note of the fact that this witness stated in the F.I.R. That he "came to know of the name of the accused afterwards, but in his evidence he stated that he knew him erstwhile". Learned trial Court also noticed that the traffic sargeant recorded the wrong parentage and address of the accused which indicates that "the identity of the accused was not established upto 3.00 p.m. On the day of occurrence". Learned trial Court also found that "the prosecution has failed to establish the cause of death because according to Death Certificate Exh. P.M. The cause of death was the failure of cardiorespiratory system and it was not proved by evidence that the death was caused on account of the direct result of injuries suffered y the deceased during the accident According to the medical examination of the deceased, there was no impact of the collision on the person of the deceased and there was no fatal injury on her vital parts". Evidence of Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad P.W. 3 in this behalf was not believed because according to the learned trial Court, he had improved his statement in Court. Finding of the learned trial Court was that out of three eye- witnesses, Nisar Ahmad, P.W. Was declared hostile, Asghar All was given up and the evidence of Abdul Sattar complainant was full of discrepancies. Learned trial Court also refused to take judicial notice of the pleadings in the civil Court (copies of which were produced by complainant's counsel at the conclusion of the trial) wherein respondent No, 3 was alleged to have admitted that he was driving the vehicle at the time of occurrence. As regards the injuries on the person of respondent No, 3 learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the same "cannot be called injuries, because according to the medical report, the accused complained pains in the right chest front and left buttock. These pains cannot be attributed to the impact of accident".
' Having discussed the evidence and dealt with all the relevant aspects of the prosecution case in the manner aforementioned, learned trial Court held that there was no independent corroboration of the evidence of P.W. 2 and that in view of numerous doubts and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence benefit of which must go to the accused, prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case. Respondent Nc 3 was accordingly acquitted, vide judgment, dated 11-10-1980.
8. State having refused to file an appeal against the acquittal of respondent No,
3. Petitioner who is the husband of the deceased Mst. Gul Rano preferred a revision petition.
' State represented through A.D.A., did not support the revision petition. Learned Additional Sessions Judge re-appraised the entire evidence and found that out of three eye-witnesses. Nisar Ahmad did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Asghar, the other eye-witness was not produced by the prosecution as having been won over. Prosecution was, therefore, left only with testimony of Abdul Sattar who was rightly held to be an interested witness and since he was himself involved in the accident, his position was not better than that of an accomplice. It was further found that this witness also suffered injuries "and definitely lost a bit of senses. This accident took place at 5.15 a.m. And he lodged his statement at about 8 a.m. At the spot thus showing that he found time '.*or consultation. The perusal of his statement definitely needed to be corroborated and I find that there is no corroboration on record to his testimony on the ocular side." As regards the report of the traffic sergeant (Exh. P.K.) incriminating respondent No, 3 as responsible for the accident, learned Additional Sessions Judge held that this was only an opinion of a police officer.
With these findings, learned Additional Session Judge dismissed the petitioner's revision. Hence this petition.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned judgments on the sole ground that the learned Courts below took an unreasonable view of the evidence. Learned counsel relied upon MRs, Farhat Jabeen v. Additional Judge, Lahore and others PLD 1981 Lah. 588 for the proposition that a judgment based on unreasonable view of evidence can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.. In the case cited by the learned counsel, it was held that this Court in Learned trial Court after thorough appraisal of the entire evidence
9. Writ jurisdiction can interfere even with discretionary orders "in case of finding being based on insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumption of fact, patent errors of law, consideration of inadmissible evidence, excess or abuse of jurisdiction arbitrary exercise of power and unreasonable view of evidence." There is no cavil with the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner but the question is whether in the instant case, view of the evidence taken by the learned Courts below can be said to be unreasonable.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Abdul Sattar P.W. 2 who was driving the car in which the deceased lady was sitting was himself injured in the accident and as such his testimony did not require any further corroboration. I am not impressed with the submission made by the learned counsel. Learned trial Court as also the learned Additional Sessions Judge gave good reasons for holding that Abdul Sattar complainant was an interested witness whose testimony could not be accepted without independent corroboration. The learned trial Magistrate particularly pointed out that this witness stated in the F.I.R. That he came to know the name of respondent No, 3 after the occurrence but while appearing as a witness in Court he stated that he had known him before. Taking this material discrepancy together with other circumstances into consideration, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of this witness required corroboration.
Finding of the learned trial Court was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who held that since this witness was himself involved in the accident, his position was no better than that of an accomplice. It was further found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the accident took place at 5.15 a.m. And this witness lodged the report at about 8.00 a.m. At the spot which shows that he found time for consultation. Thus the finding of the learned Courts below that the evidence of Abdul Sattar P.W. Required corroboration is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on the record and supported by sound reasons.
10. Learned counsel next contended even if any corroboration of the evidence of P.W. Was needed, the same was furnished by the medical evidence to the effect that respondent No, 3 had also suffered injuries in the accident. This aspect of the matter was also duly taken note of by the learned trial Magistrate and he came to the conclusion that according to the medical report, the accused complained of pain in the right chest and left buttock which could not be called injuries nor could the same be said to be the result of the accident. This, in my view, was the correct appreciation of the medical evidence and that being so, the so-called injuries on the person of respondent No, 3 could hardly be of any corroborative value.
11. As discussed above, learned Courts below recorded their findings after elaborate appraisal of all the evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any misreading of the evidence or non-consideration of material evidence. His only contention that the learned Courts below took unreasonable view of the evidence, as held above, is without any substance on the record held that the prosecution failed to establish its case and, therefore, acquitted respondent No,
3. Judgment of acquittal was not appealed against by the State. Revision petition moved by the petitioner was also not supported by the State and was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge after re-considering and re-appraising the prosecution evidence. In these circumstances, findings recorded by the two learned Courts of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. Even if it be possible to come to a conclusion different from that recorded by the Courts of competent jurisdiction, that is no reason for interference with the impugned judgments because this Court in its writ jurisdiction does not, act as an appellate Court.
12. Apart from what has been said above, order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction is not open to review in writ jurisdiction. It was so held in Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC 522. Relevant observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court are as follows:- "After the enforcement of revisional power on the Sessions Judges, all revisions against judgments of acquittal recorded by Magistrate lie before them, i.e, before Sessions Judges, while revisions against judgments of acquittal by any other 'inferior criminal Court' would still lie before the High Court. The reasons for introducing this amendment and curtailing the jurisdiction of the High Court was obviously that each High Court had become clogged with revision petitions against orders of hundreds of Magistrates throughout the respective province and speedy disposal thereof was not possible.........................
' But it is noticed with some dismay that persons dissatisfied with the judgments of the final Courts under the normal law have taken to challenging them through writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution, thereby circumventing the law and defeating the obvious intention of the Legislature."
' It was further held in the precedent case that:- "The question of jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 199, has come under consideration in a number of cases before this Court and it has been repeatedly held that if a Court or Tribunal set up under the ordinary law has the jurisdiction to decide a particular matter then there is jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly and the fact that the decision is incorrect or is not one at which the High Court would have arrived, does not render the decision without jurisdiction."
' The aforementioned view was reaffirmed in Faqir Muhammad v. Muhammad Ismail PLD 1983 SC 453.
' Upshot of the above discussion is that this petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.