' The facts leading to filing of this appeal are that appellant Muhammad Akram was sent up for trial by Police Station Saddar, Sargodha, for offences under section 304-A/337/338, P.P.C. For having caused death of one Ali Akbar and injuries to Mst. Farhat Shaheen and Mst. Fazeelat. The allegation against the appellant was that on 20-4-1985, within the area of Chak No,17/N.B., he was driving a tractor-trolly which collided with a wagon in which the deceased and the injured were travelling.
Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha, on 9-1-1988 convicted and sentenced him to five years'
R.I. Under section 304-A, P.P.C. With a fine of Rs,10,000, or in default six months' R.I. It was further directed that the fine, if recovered, half of it shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. The prosecution in support of its case had produced eight witnesses in all. Dr. Muhammad Rafique, P.W.8 examined the injured and the deceased and opined that the deceased had died due to injuries received in accident. Ocular account was furnished by Imtiaz All and Mst. Farhat, P.Ws.6 and 7, respectively. Both of them gave a detailed account of occurrence and stated that the accident took place because of the negligence of the appellant. The rest of the witnesses were formal.
3. The appellant has moved an application seeking permission to compromise. He produced Mehboob Ahmad, father of the deceased, and Abdul Rehman, brother of the deceased. Both of them stated that they had forgiven the appellant. As far as the evidence is concerned, it is confidence inspiring. Mst. Farhat herself was injured, therefore, her presence at the spot cannot be doubted. Even otherwise, the appellant in his statement did not deny the time and place of occurrence. He only attributed that the accident took place because of the negligence of the wagon-driver. After going through the evidence, it is held that the appellant was rightly convicted.
As far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, I feel, in view of the compromise effected between the parties, the sentence already undergone would adequately meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine, or in default thereof, is, however, maintained. With this reduction in sentence, the appeal is disposed of.