' This revision petition under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. Has been filed by the petitioner vide which he has prayed that his conviction under section 279/427, P.P.C. Read with section 337-G, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and sentence of one year's R.I., on each count, as confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur, by his order, dated 26-4-1994, be set aside.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the eventful day i,e, 28-1-1992 at 1-30 p.m. Shaukat Zaman, complainant, was going to Haripur from Abbottabad in his car registration No,IDA-474, that at the relevant time he was himself driving the vehicle in question, that when he reached the Soka of Sarai Saleh, he turned his car towards Door side, that in the meanwhile bus, registration No,ADA- 8186, which was following him at some distance. Hit the car, through rash and negligent driving, causing injuries to him (the complainant) and damage to his car. It has been further alleged that a constable. Besides other people, rushed to the scene of occurrence, brought him out of the car and took him to the D.H Q Hospital. Haripur, that on receipt of the information of the accident A.S.I.
Safdar Zaman Khan arrived at the Emergency Ward of the Hospital in the company of F.C.
Muhammad Shafique, that it was there that his report was reduced into writing in the form of Murasila Exh.P.A./1 on the basis of which a case was registered at Police Station Haripur, against the petitioner, vide F.I.R. No,88 (Exh.P.A.).
3. The local police, after completion of usual police investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner under section 279/427, P.P.C. Read with section 337-G of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate.
4. At the trial, the petitioner expressed his innocence, repudiated all the allegations of the prosecution and claimed trial. Upon the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 279/427, P.P.C. Read with section 337(g), Qisas and Diyat Ordinance.
5. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner went up on appeal to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, who upheld the conviction but modified the sentence on each count, as has been mentioned in his judgment dated 26-4-1994.
6. This revision petition has been filed, against the said judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, by the petitioner for the redress of his grievance.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the State Counsel and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
8. It may be stated at the very outset that a perusal of the statement of the Investigating Officer makes it abundantly clear that the accident took place not on the main road but in Soka quite distant from there. This fact is also confirmed by the very testimony of the complainant. In contrast to the combined statement of the Investigating Officer and the complainant, just referred to above, the site plan indicates the venue of accident in the middle of the road. This by no means reconciles with the statement mentioned above. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the venue of accident is beset with grave doubt. Beside this the manner in which the accident is alleged to have taken place is not free from suspicion. For instance, the complainant has himself admitted that the accident took place when he suddenly took turn towards Soka without giving any indicator. In the absence of any reliable evidence to show the distances between the car and the bus, it cannot be said, with certainty, that the bus was at high speed or was being driven negligently or rashly. Before taken turn the complainant should have seen how far away the bus was from him and should have also given indicator, for taking due precaution by the bus driver, before taking a turn. Nothing of the sort was done. I am, therefore, of the view that the fault, in the first instance, lies with the complainant and that it was because of his defective driving that the accident took place.
9. ' As far as the general and vague allegations of rash and negligent driving is concerned, it would be sufficient to mention that the record of the case does not show that the bus driver did not or had failed to observe the traffic rules. There is no evidence, worth the name, to show at what speed the bus was being driven at the relevant time. There is equally no evidence to indicate as to whether the speed, at which the bus was proceeding in that particular area, was excessive, keeping in view the quantum of traffic. The mere fact of driving at high speed is not at all relatable to rashness or negligence. What should have been appropriate speed of the bus in that particular area, there is a complete black out and thus it cannot be safely held as to what the speed of the bus should have been. Accordingly the element of rashness as well as negligence has not been proved by the production of any clear, cogent and convincing evidence.
10. As such, from whichever angle, the case is judged, the prosecution has failed to prove rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. On the contrary, the accident took place because of the defective driving of the complainant. Resultantly, I. Accept this revision petition and set aside- the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner and acquit him. The petitioner is on bail and his bail bond shall stand discharged.