1. ' Applicant, Muhammad Yamin, was tried by the Additional City Magistrate, Tando Jam and was convicted under section 304-A, Cr.P.C. He has been sentenced to suffer R.I. For 2 years arid to pay fine of Rs,3,000 out of which an amount of Rs,2,000 was ordered to be paid to the, heirs of the deceased. An appeal was filed against the conviction which was dismissed by 1Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Now he has come in Revision under section 435/439, Cr.P.C.
2. ' The facts of the case are that on 6-2-1978 complainant Baqa Muhammad came at police post Hatri, District Hyderabad and reported that at mid-night while he was sleeping in the house he heard sound of collusion of vehicles, at National High way. He alongwith Habib Samo, Rehimdad and other villagers came out and saw that there was head-on collusion between Car No, HDC 3971 and an Oil-Tanker No, S.T. 1985 on National High way. They saw that car was completely smashed and driver was lying dead. It is stated that appellant Muhammad Yamin was standing who told them that he was going from Nawabshah to Hyderabad and car came from North and there was accident.
3. Prosecution in support of the case examined 6 witnesses namely Hussain Bux, Exh.3, Rahimdad Exh.14, Habib Exh.5, Dr. Abdul Majid Exh.6, Inayat Khan Incharge Police Post Hatri and Process-Server Inayat.
4. ' The case of applicant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Is a simple denial. He has stated that he was not driving that vehicle at the time of incident but was a driver of Truck No,4476-KCD.
5. ' There is no eye-witness of this incident. Complainant Baqa Muhammad and prosecution witnesses Rahim Dino and Habib reached immediately at the Wardat on hearing sound on the National Highway, they saw car and oil tanker already collided with each other and found dead body of unknown person lying in the car which was smashed. Baqa Muhammad could not be examined as he died during the proceeding and F.I.R. Exh.8-A has been produced through S.I.P.
6. Inayat Ali, prosecution witness Habib and Rahimdino have stated in their evidence that both the vehicles were lying on the eastern side of the road. They stated that due to the negligence of driver the car was damaged and occupant of car Altaf Nabi died. Both these witnesses have stated that the driver of the tanker was standing there and he informed them that there had been an accident with his oil tanker. P.W.1 Hussain Bux is the Mashir of the Wardat and he produced Mashirnamas. He stated that oil tanker was standing at the distance at about 2-8 paces on the road side of the car and it was facing south. He has stated that the dead body was lying at the space between the- car and oil tanker. It has come in the evidence the oil tanker was on the wrong side. Dr. Abdul Majid conducted the post-mortem report of the deceased Altaf Nabi s/o Gul Hassan Abbasi. He has stated that death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by 4 injuries mentioned in the post- mortem. In his opinion injuries were sustained in road accident. P.W .5 Inayat Ali, A .S.I.P. Registered the case and proceeded to the Wardat. He prepared Mashirnama of Wardat and sent dead body of Altaf Nabi for post-mortem. He after completion of investigation handed over the papers to the S.H.O. Who challaned the case on 14-2-1978.
7. ' Applicant has not examined any person in his defence.
8. ' The death of Altaf Nabi is proved. The applicant was present at the place of Wardat,- and he was arrested on the very day. He has not taken plea of accident. On the contrary his contention is that he was not driving the oil tanker by which Altaf Nabi, died. There circumstantial evidence that applicant while driving oil tanker rashly and negligently killed Altaf Nabi who was in the car. The.
9. Additiona City Magistrate has considered all aspects of the case and found applican guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A, Cr.P.C. Th appellate Court by detailed judgment has touched all the points raised before him and discussed the entire evidence. The appeal was dismissed. The scope in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by this Court agains concurrent findings of the two Courts is very limited. The judgment could , only be interfered when miscarriage of justice or any paten irregularity or illegality is pointed out. In both the judgments I do no find anything which calls for interference. The Revision Application I dismissed. The applicant is on bail.
10. He shall be remanded to custod to serve out the sentence.