Taus Khan son of Noor Rehman resident of Gohati, District Swabi, appellant herein, was indicted for the offence under section 279, P.P.C. Qatl-i---Khata of Imtiaz Ahmad son of Shamshad Khan punishable under section 320, P.P.C., causing hurt to passengers punishable under section 337-G, P.P.C. And running down a bullock worth Rs.5,000 thereby committing an offence punishable under section 429, P.P.C. By driving rashly and negligently a flying coach bearing registration No.PRJ-3919 on 10-6-1992 at 16-00 hours on Mardan-Swabi Road, in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mardan in case F.I.R. No.259, dated 10-6-1992 Police Station Shahbaz Garhi. The learned Judge of the trial Court by judgment, dated 25-1-1995 convicted the appellant under section 320, P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo 3 years' R.I. The appellant was burdened to pay Diyat (Rs.2,20,000) to the legal heirs of the deceased within a period of three years in six equal instalments and in default of payment of Diyat to be kept in prison till the payment of Diyat or furnishing security of the equal amount. The appellant was acquitted of the charge under sections 337-G and 429, P.P.C. The charge under section 279, P.P.C. Was considered amalgamated in section 320, P.P.C.
2. The report of the occurrence was lodged by Nasim Shah wherein it is alleged that flying coach (PRJ-3919) driven by the appellant rashly and negligently ran down his bullock, which he had tied on the roadside alongwith other cattles and the vehicle collided with the tree. One of the passengers of the vehicle died and other passengers were injured. The report (Exh.PA./1) was recorded by S. Zahid Shah, S.I. (P.W.7) and incorporated in the register of F.I.R. (Exh.PA.) by M. Ajmal Khan, S.I. (P.W.4).
S. Zahid Shah, S.I. (P.W.7) proceeded to the spot, prepared the injury-- sheet (Exh.P.M./2) and inquest report (Exh.P.M./3) and prepared site plan (Exh.P.B.) at the pointation of the complainant.
The vehicle was taken into possession vide memo. (Exh.P.W.l/1) and examined by Arbab Samin Jan, Motor Vehicle Examiner, Peshawar (P.W.3) who did not find any fault in the vehicle and submitted his report (Exh.P.W.3/1) to this effect.
Nasim Shah, complainant (P.W.2) has stated that he had tied his cattle on the roadside under the shadow of a tree. The driver was driving the flying coach rashly and negligently which went out of his control and overran the cattle and collided with a tree resulting into death of one passenger sitting in the flying coach and the ox about 5/6 years worthy Rs.5,000 also died. This witness stated that he has patched up the matter with the appellant after receiving Rs.1,500 as compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that rash or negligent driving of the motor vehicle (flying coach by the appellant has not been proved at all and, therefore, the appellant is not guilty of "Qatl-i-Khata". Reference was made to the judgments Ghulam Muhammad v. The Crown PLD 1953 Lah. 260, Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State PLD 1959 (W.P.) Kar. 30, Terence Anthony D'Casta v. The State 1969 PCr.LJ 1228, Abdul Ghani v. The State 1975 PCr.LJ 405, Rogers v. The State 1977,PCr.L1 138, Muhammad Akhtar v. The State 1980 PCr.LJ 103, Muhammad Saddaq v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 2794. Learned counsel for the State argued that rash driving of the motor vehicle by the appellant has resulted in the death of one of the passengers and, therefore, the appellant is guilty of "Qatl-i-Khata". Reference was made to judgment Ijaz Ahmad v. Emperor AIR 1936 Oudh 148.
Learned counsel for the State further submitted that "Qatl" is causing death which has been explained as "Qatl_i-Khata" in section 318, P.P.C. The appellant was rash in driving the motor vehicle. Reference was made to judgment Muhammad Bux v. Emperor AIR 1935 Nag. 200, Deota Misir v. Emperor AIR 1931 All. 708, Tikka Ram v. Rex AIR 1950 All. 300, Emperor v. Marshal AIR 1937 Bom.
80 and AIR 1959 Mad. 497.
4. "Qatl" means death of a person. The meaning of "Qatl" does not include words of "intention" and "act" for "Qatl". The word "Qatl", therefore, cannot be translated as murder or culpable homicide. The "Qatl" of a person is codified by "Qatl-i-Amd" in section 300, P.P.C. Which is analogous to culpable homicide of earlier section 299, P.P.C. The codification of "Qatl-i-Khata" in section 318, P.P.C. Is an, offences of causing death without any intention by A mistake of act or of fact. The death caused by rash or negligent driving is also "Qatl-i-Khata" under section 320, P.P.C. The driving has neither been defined nor explained in section 320, P.P.C. The provisions of section 279, P.P.C. Are still intact and driving is meant driving any vehicle. The ordinary dictionary meaning of "drive" is to direct and control a vehicle or locomotive but the same meaning cannot be imported in section 320, P.P.C.
The Criminal Law Statutes cannot be interpreted by adding words to it or making redundant words used in B the Statute. The judgment in this case in respect of "Qatl-i-Khata" is to be delivered having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel will not in all four apply to facts and circumstances of this case except for interpreting words "rash or negligent". The words "any other person" as used in section 279, P.P.C.
Are missing in section 320, P.P.C. The injury or death of occupant and/or passengers of a driven vehicle will not be covered by mischief of section 320, P.P.C. The judgment in the case of Ijaz Ahmad AIR 1936 Oudh 148 will not apply to the provisions of section 320, P.P.C. The words "driving" in its application under section 320, P.P.C. Is limited to person or persons on road on the rule, of intendment of Legislature making specific provisions for fads and circumstances of the case. It must also be person or persons on the road and not animals as in case it was only an ox which was run over by the vehicle and no person on , e road was injured or death of person was caused on the road. The punishment for "Qatl-i-Khata" by rash or negligent driving is dependent upon the proof of rash or negligent driving within the meaning of E section 320, P.P.C.
5. The site plan (Exh.P.B.) prepared by Investigating Officer S. Zahid Shah (P.W.7) on the pointation of complainant Nasim Shah (P.W.2), who happens to be the only eye-witness of the occurrence, indicates point 1 on the road where the flying coach is stated to have lost control and ran over the ox at point No.2 on the road. The distance between point 1 and 2 is one pace (3 feet). It is stated that the flying coach collided with the tree, but no tree is shown in the site plan. The vehicle is stated to be having no fault by Arbab Samin Jan, Vehicle Examiner (P.W.3). There is no evidence that the vehicle was damaged by collision with the tree. No other vehicle or pedestrian is shown present in the site plan. It seems that the ox of (P.W.2) was either tied on the road or was suddenly crossing the road. The statement of P.W.2 that the vehicle was driven rash or negligent is his own judgment of the driving because of the death of his ox. The prosecution has failed to prove the rash or negligent driving by the appellant and has also failed to prove that "Qatl-i-Khata" (of a person) has been caused on the road by the appellant.
This appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentences passed against Taus Khan, appellant, under section 320 read with section 279, P.P.C. Including the amount of Diyat in the judgment, dated 25-1-1995 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mardan, are set aside and acquitted of the charge. The appellant should be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.