1. ' The appellant has been convicted under section 304-A, P.P.C. For causing the death of motor- cyclist Tahir Khan by driving his Mini Bus in a rash and negligent manner. The prosecution case is that the appellant Shafiullah was the driver of Mini Bus No,866-738 plying on Route No,W-18 and on 18-6-1985 at 6-00 p.m. It was being driven rashly and negligently and at a fast speed and on the wrong side of the road and it hit deceased Tahir Khan who was going on his motor-cycle, The appellant is said to have run away from the scene of accident but was apprehended by S.I. Traffic Ghulam Hussain Nadeem who chased the Mini Bus and managed to stop it at some distance. The appellant was arrested and taken to police station and in due course was challaned under section 304-A, P.P.C. Learned trial Court by the impugned judgment, dated 12-1-1988 convicted the appellant under section 304-A, P.P.C. And sentenced him to suffer R.I. For 3 years and to pay fine of Rs,10,000 or suffer further imprisonment for 6 months in lieu of payment of fine. The appellant has come in appeal against his conviction. His case is that his vehicle was not involved in the accident and he has been falsely implicated by the police.
2. 2 A perusal of the evidence shows that whereas it is proved by the evidence of P.W.1 Shahid Ali that deceased Tahir Khan was going on his motor-cycle when he was hit by mini bus coming from the wrong side of dual carriage way and died on the spot, there is no evidence on record to show that the said mini bus was the one bearing registration number 866-738 driven by appellant with the exception of P.W.9 Sub-Inspector Ghulam Hussain Nadeem who said that he reached the place of accident a minute or so after the accident, that he was given by the people gathering there the registration No,866-738 of the mini bus which caused the accident, that the said mini bus was still visible at the horizon and he went after it and stopped it after a short chase and apprehended the driver who gave his name as Shafiullah and admitted that he had caused the accident, and requested him not to take him (Shafiullah) to the place of accident as people would kill him whereupon the witness secured the driving licence of the appellant and took him and the mini bus to Police Station New Karachi through another route. It is not possible to hold, on the strength of the evidence of this Police Officer alone, that appellant was involved in the accident. This officer's statement was not recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. As he himself stated in his cross- examination. He was one of the most important witnesses and I fail to understand why his 161, Cr.P.C. Statement was not recorded. It is also not clear why he did not note down the name of even one person out of six or seven who had provided him the registration number of the mini bus. It is also not clear why he did not note down the name of even one passenger of the mini bus although, as he himself says there were a good many passengers in the mini bus. The persons who gave him the registration number of mini bus and the passengers of the mini bus were all eye-witnesses of the accident and therefore, very important prosecution witnesses. This .Officer allowed such important evidence to melt into nothingness. He was, evidently, either down right inefficient or down right corrupt. P.W.4 Farzand Ali (the then A.S.I. Of Police Station New Karachi) partly conducted the investigation of the case and his role is equally dubious. He had inspected the place of accident in the presence of Mashirs Shahid Ali and Shareef. This Shahid did not support the Mashirnama and Masheer Shareef was either a fictitious person or else his proper address was not taken and proper vigil was not kept over him to ensure that he did not change his address without informing the Investigating Officer about the change of his address. As a result, he was not found and could not be examined. It is interesting to note that P.W.4 Farzand Ali wrongly gave the name of the second Mashir as Bashir when in fact the name of the second Mashir of Mashirnama Exh.P.1 is Shareef. Same is the position in respect of Mashirnama of arrest of appellant and impounding of his mini bus (Exh.P.2) P.W.4 Farzand All first said that he recorded the statement of S.I. Nadeem (P.W.9 Ghulam Hussain Nadeem) but then had to admit that his 161, Cr.P.C. Statement was not recorded. As pointed out earlier, this Nadeem was an important witness and it is not clear why his 161, Cr.P.C. Statement was not recorded. P.W.4 Farzand Ali handed over investigation to Mr. Shakeel Zaidi S.I.P. Who has not been examined by prosecution. He was an important witness as he was in the charge of the investigation from the very next day of the accident. It is evident that all conceivable steps for ensuring the acquittal of the appellant were taken by the investigating agency and material evidence was suppressed. Under the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained on the solitary evidence of P.W.9 Ghulam Hussain Nadeem. I would, therefore, acceept the appeal and acquit the appellant.
3. ' A copy of this judgment should be sent to Inspector-General of Police through Home Secretary for taking whatever action may be deemed appropriate in respect of the investigation of the case.