Muhammad Fazil petitioner was tried under section 304-A, P.P.C. By Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad on the charge of causing death of Mokha by rash and negligent driving on 3-3-1983 in Chak No.17/J.B. The prosecution produced 8 witnesses. Ghulam Qadir P.W.1 and Mukhtar P.W.2 are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They supported the allegations against the petitioner. Dr. Muhammad Idrees P.W.5 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mokha deceased. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the incriminating circumstances and raised the plea of false implication on account of enmity. He stated that he was not a driver of truck and used to drive tractor of Muhammad Shari. He produced Iqbal Hussain P.W. 1 and Ahmad D.W.2 in defence. The trial Court convicted the petitioner under section 304-A, P.P.C. And sentenced to 2 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof further R.I. For six months. The appeal filed by him against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on 15-4-1984, hence this revision.
2. Neither the petitioner nor his learned counsel has appeared. Since the revision cannot be dismissed for want of appearance, so I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. I find that the two eye-witnesses who are quite independent and absolutely dependable have supported the prosecution case. I do not see any legal infirmity in their statements, which do not suffer from material contradiction/major discrepancies. The defence evidence was discussed and considered by the Appellate Court, which was of the view that the defence version was afterthought. I do not see any' reason to disagree with this observation of the Appellate Court with regard to the defence version. The trial Court had given opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. The case has properly been appreciated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The judgment is neither perverse nor illegal.
Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court, with the well reasoned judgment of the Appellate Court. So, the revision is dismissed. The trial Court shall issue warrants for his arrest. On his arrest, the petitioners will be sent to jail to serve the remaining sentence.
S.A./M-2766/L Conviction maintained.