1. The petitioner in this case was tried by a Judicial Magistrate at Mianwali on a charge under section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code but vide judgment dated 10-11-1985, he was convicted under section 304, P.P.C. And was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months. The fine if recovered was directed to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation.
2. Aggrieved by his conviction, the petitioner preferred appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Mianwali, vide judgment dated 2nd of January, 1986. The petitioner has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court through this revision and this judgment will dispose of the same.
3. The prosecution case in brief as narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. Lodged by Allah Bakhsh; complainant, is that he is a resident of village Trug and on the fateful day, he alongwith Hakim Khan, P.W.2 was proceeding on a bicycle from Isa Khel to Trug and ahead of them, deceased Sardar Khan was also proceeding on a bicycle. Both the complainant and the deceased were proceeding on the left side of the road and when they reached near Adda Kaluanwala, then from behind a truck bearing No.2175/DNA came at a fast speed and hit Sardar Khan who fell down and was then run over by the truck. The driver did not stop the truck and drove it at a very fast speed towards Mianwali. The deceased was removed to the Civil Hospital, Kala Bagh where he succumbed to the injuries. The bicycle of the deceased was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.E. The petitioner-driver of the truck was arrested and the truck as well as its route permit, registration book and driving licence were taken into possession on 14-7-1984 vide recovery memo. Exh.P.B.
4. At the trial the prosecution relied upon the statement of Allah Bakhsh complainant, P.W.1, Hakim Khan, P.W.2 besides the formal witnesses and Iftikhar Ahmad, S.I./S.H.O., P.W.9, the investigating officer.
5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully perused the entire record and I have also gone through the statements of the witnesses as well as the investigating officer. The petitioner denied the charge in his statement recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C.
6. However, he admitted his arrest and the production of truck and its document by him. The petitioner further stated that before the recovery of truck and his arrest, he had engaged a driver and in fact, the said driver had hit the deceased and after the accident, the said driver left his service. However, no defence evidence was led.
7. The prosecution case rests upon the statements of Allah Bakhsh complainant P.W.1 and Hakim Khan, P.W.2 who were going together on a cycle behind the deceased. Their presence at the spot cannot be denied, they are the natural witnesses and they had removed the deceased to the hospital and had also lodged the F.I.R. And in fact, Allah Bakhsh, P.W. Had also noted down the number of the truck and during the investigation, it transpired that it was the petitioner who owned this truck and was driving the same for the last 14 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the defence taken by the petitioner in the Courts below.
8. I have considered this aspect carefully but it seems to be a after--thought. Had it been true, the petitioner would have taken all steps to assist the police in apprehending the real culprit, therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner is a bald assertion with no material on the record to substantiate it. The petitioner even failed to disclose the name of the driver alleged to have worked in his service.
9. The Courts below rightly appraised the evidence and there is nothing wrong in holding the petitioner guilty on the aforesaid charge.
10. In this view of the matter, I find no substance in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.