' This revision petition is directed against the judgments of learned Magistrate 1st Class, Sheikhupura, dated 24th of October 1974 and learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, dated 21st of January 1976 whereby the former convicted Ghulam Gilani petitioner-accused under sections 304-A and 337, P. P. C. And sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 304-A, P. P. C., and to a fine of Rs, 100 under section 337, P. P.C., and on appeal the conviction under section 337, P. P. C. Was set aside and the sentence under section 304-A, P. P. C. Was reduced from two years' rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment.
2. Muhammad Ali (P. W. 8) made statement Exh. P. A. Before Allah Yar Khan, A. S. I., Police Station Sadar Sheikhupura, at adda Ferozewatwan, on 13th of January 1972, at about 10-30 p.m.
Muhammad Ali disclosed in the F.
1. R. That he was present near adda Ferozwatwan alongwith Muhammad Jamil (P. W. 5) and found Bus No, SA. 1775, heading towards Sheikhupura at a very high speed and the bus was being driven by Ghulam Gilani petitioner-accused; that car No, SA. 3636 was coming from Sheikhupura side and going towards Lyallpur; that the bus driver hit the car from the front side and pushed the car back to a distance of 20/25 karams and thereafter the bus got out of control of the driver and turned turtle; that four car passengers received serious injuries while a bus passenger died at the spot.
After recording the statement of Muhammad Ali, the A. S. I. Sent statement Exh. P. A. At Police Station Sadar Sheikhupura and formal F. I. R. Exh. P. A./1 was recorded. The A. S. I. Prepared the injury statements and the inquest report. He also prepared rough plan Exh. P. B. Of the spot of occurrence and sent for the photographer who took photographs Exhs. P. 1 to P. 6 from different angles. Four persons, namely, Abdul Majid aged about 40 years, Khalid Pervaiz aged about 35 years, Mukhtar Hussain aged about 35 years and Muhammad Sharif lost their lives while Shaman aged four years, a son of Abdul Majid deceased, escaped death although he received an injury over the right eye- brow. After investigation the challan was submitted in Court. Muhammad Jamil, an eye-witness, was examined as P. W. 5 and he supported the prosecution case by deposing that he found the bus coming from Lyallpur side at a speed of 50 miles an hour, which was being driven by the petitioner-accused and it hit the car and then the bus turned turtle. He further stated that the three car passengers died in the Hospital while a bus passenger expired at the spot. Muhammad Ali on whose statement the case was registered while appearing as P. W. 8 supported the prosecution case. During cross-examination he, however, made certain admissions and showed favour to the petitioner-accused. Muhammad Ali son of Isa another eye-witness did not support the prosecution case while appearing as P. W.
6. He was allowed to be cross-examined by the P. S. I.
3. The petitioner-accused was examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. e took up the plea that the occurrence had taken place due to the negligence of the car driver. He produced Amir All (D. W. 1) and Muhammad Akram (D. W. 2) in support of his plea. Both the witnesses stated that on amount of the rain and slippery road the bus turned turtle and after about five minutes a car coining from the other side dashed into the bus.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was not possible for Muhammad Jamil (P. W. 5) and Muhammad Ali (P. W. 8) to give the speed of the bus as they were not the bus passengers; that according to Muhammad Jamil P. W. He saw the occurrence from a distance of one furlong which was against the prosecution version; that Muhammad Ali (P. W. 8) supported the defence plea by stating that five minutes after the bus had turned turtle the car rammed into it and thus the petitioner was not responsible for the present occurrence; that two bus passengers supported the plea of the petitioner-accused; that no passenger from the bus was produced by the prosecution; that another eye-witness, namely, Muhammad Ali son of is a did not support the prosecution case. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the record. On coming to know of the occurrence Allah Yar Khan, A. S. I. (P. W. 2) reached the spot immediately and he recorded the statement of Muhammad All complainant. The complainant disclosed in this statement that the petitioner-accused was driving the bus at a very high speed and it hit the car which was coming from the opposite side and the bus pushed the car back to a distance of 20/25 karams and thereafter it went out of control and turned turtle. During examination-inchief Muhammad Ali gave the same version. During cross-examination, he took up a position altogether different from the one which he gave in the examination-in-chief. He showed concession to the petitioner-accused by admitting that on account of rain the bus turned turtle and five minutes later the car dashed into the bus. This was the plea of the appellant and it is to be examined as to how far this plea was correct. As mentioned above, Muhammad All had given the same version during his examination-inchief as he gave in the F. I. R. According to his admission during cross- examination, the bus had turned turtle first and five minutes later the car rammed into it which was an impossibility. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place at night time. None of the witnesses stated that the car or the bus was without lights. In case the bus had turned turtle first, the car driver would have noticed it from a long distance and he could have stopped the car easily. In case the car had hit the bus while the bus had turned turtle, the half portion of the right wind screen glass of the bus would have been sma shed. Photograph Exh. P. 1 shows that no damage had been done to the front wind screen glass. Only the portion in front of the right wheel had been damaged which proved that this portion had hit the car as was the prosecution version. Photograph Exh. P. 3 showed that the car and the bus were practically at the same level. If the car had rammed into the bus and skidded away, it would have been far away from the bus towards the front side of the bus.
It was quite apparent from photograph Exh. P. 3 that there were marks of the wheel which indicated that the car was pushed back as alleged by the prosecution. Site plan was prepared by the A. S. I.
Soon after the occurrence. According to this site plan the bus had hit the car at point "A". Lyallpur was towards the west while Sheikhupura towards the East. The Bus was coming from the West and going towards the East while the car from East to West. Point "A" was on the wrong side of the bus and it would show that when the bus hit the car the bus was not on its right side. The car was, however, being driven on a right place. Point "D" in the site plan indicated the place where the car was pushed back. The distance between point "A" and point "D" was 15 karams. After hitting the car at point "A" the bus turned turtle at point "B" which was at a distance of 14 karams. A witness may show concession and tell lie in order to favour the accused but the circumstances do not. Even during cross-examination, Muhammad Ali (P. W. 8) admitted at one stage that after slipping, the bus hit into the car. Muhammad Ali stated in cross-examination that the bus had not turned turtle on the side of the driver but it had turned on the other side which was factually incorrect, because the bus had turned turtle on the side of the driver. Muhammad Ali further stated that after the bus turned turtle it posed towards Lyallpur which was again factually incorrect. Since the witness was showing concession to the accused truth came out of his mouth even during cross-examination.
The witness stated that when the car hit into the bus five minutes of its turning turtle, the bus continued pushing back the car. If the bus had turned turtle first and the car had dashed into the bus, there was no question of the bus pushing back the car. Muhammad Ali made another wrong statement in his cross-examination by stating that the car remained on the metalled road. The photographs would show that the car was thrown far away from the metalled road. In view of the above discussion I would not take into consideration the concessions which Muhammad Ali P. W.
Had intentionally shown to the petitioner-accused in order to help him. Muhammad Jamil (P. W. 5) fully supported the prosecution case by stating that he found the appellant driving the bus at a speed of 50 miles an hour and it hit the car and turned turtle. He was put only one question in cross-examination. He stated in cross-examination that he did not mention before the police that the speed of the bus was 50 miles. He however, stated that he mentioned before the police that the bus was going at a high speed. The only defect pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused in his statement that the witness deposed before the Court that the bus had hit the car at a distance of one furlong. The distance was probable and it might not be the exact distance or the witness was not correct in giving the distance. It would least affect the statement of the witness. The material point for determination is as to whether the bus had hit the car or as to whether the car had rammed into bus after it had turned turtle. Since the statement of Muhammad Jamil was not challenged in cross-examination, it shall be deemed to have been accepted by the accused. No large number of witnesses are required to prove a case. Conviction can validly be based on the solitary statement of a truthful witness. Muhammad Jamil was a shop-keeper at adda Ferozewatwan and he was a natural witness. I have no reason and find no material on record to reject his testimony. Both the D. Ws. Made false statements in Court. Amir Ali (D. W. 1) was a transporter. He knew the accused previously. During his cross-examination he stated that no bus passenger received any injury. It was incorrect because a bus passenger had also died at the spot.
According to him the bus skidded away to a distance of one or one and half kanal. He was contradicted by the other D. W. Named Muhammad Akram in this behalf. According to him the bus skidded away to a distance of 3/4 furlong. He also stated in his cross-examination that neither any bus passenger received any injury nor died at the spot which was an incorrect statement. These points lead me to believe that none was a turthful witness. There was no dispute about the fact that the petitioner-accused was driving the bus. Even if a person is not travelling in the bus he can very well say that a bus is being driven at a high speed, There was ample evidence on the record to show that it had rained and the road was slippery. It was rightly observed by the learned Magistrate that when the road was slippery, extraordinary responsibility had been cast upon the driver to take extreme caution and care to avoid a mishap. The fact, that the bus pushed back the car to a distance of about 15 karams after hitting it and then it turned turtle, would prove beyond doubt that the bus was being driven at a high speed. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was driving the bus within the permissible speed, did not impress me.
A person cannot be exonerated from the offence of rash or negligent driving if he drives the vehicle at a speed of 30 miles an hour, which is a permissible speed, in an area where lot of people are found going about like Anarkali. Since the road was slippery, speed of 40/45 miles was an excessive speed and the driver should have driven the vehicle at a slow speed. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate was not justified in importing his personal knowledge by mentioning in the judgment that the bus belonged to Sher Brother Transport Company, which had earned a notorious reputation of fastest travel service between Lyalipur and Lahore. This observation of the learned Magistrate was beyond the record and uncalled for. Even if the learned Magistrate had not made this observation, the case stood proved against the petitioner. I agree with the concurrent finding of the two Courts below, so far as the guilt of the petitioner-accused is concerned. The sentence of the petitioner-accused was rightly set aside under section 337, P. P. C. Because section 304-A, P. P. C. Is an aggravated form of offence of section 337, P. P. C. Section 304-A, P. P. C. Relates to the causing of death by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide while section 337, P. P. C. Relates to the causing of hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others.
5. In this case both the Courts below took a very lenient view in awarding sentence to the petitioner-accused. The maximum sentence under section 304-A, P. P. C. Is four years and fine. The learned Magistrate awarded only a sentence of two years in a case in which four precious lives had been lost. He did not impose any fine although it was mandatory for him to do so. The learned Additional Sessions judge, reduced the sentence from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment. He did not give any reason in his judgment for reducing the sentence. It was not a case of reduction of sentence. Both the Courts below also did not take into consideration the mandatory provisions of section 544-A, Cr. P. C. Wherein it is laid down that "when any person is convicted of an offence involving death, hurt or injury to loss, destruction or threat of property, the Court while sentencing the accused shall unless for reasons to be recorded it otherwise directs, award compensation to the heirs of the person killed, the person injured or the person whose property has been injured, lost or destroyed, as the case may be."
6. No body filed any revision petition for the enhancement of sentence nor it was pressed by the State. Since no notice for the enhancement of the sentence was given to the petitioner-accused, I do not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to enhance the sentence at this stage.
' With these observations the revision is dismissed.