Case Details

Citation(s)
1974 SLG 762 1974 SLD 762 1974 PCRLJ 279
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision ApplicationNo. 129 of 19711, 17th February, 1973
TUFAIL ALI, A. RAHMAN, C.J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Qalam Khan

VS

Tm State

Law:

Section:

Keywords: Evidence, Permission, Fine, Conviction, Motor Vehicles, Investigation, Petition, Payment, Set Aside, Place, Probative Value, Registered, Prosecution Witness, Description, Care, Prosecutor, Prosecution, Magistrate, Vehicle Result: Petition accepted JUDGMENT On the 14th of September, 1969 at about 7-30 p.m; a taxi ran over a child named Arif son of Muhammad who was about 8, and injured him. The child died subsequently and as a result case under section 304-A was registered and investigated. The applicant in this case, alleged to he the driver of the taxi in question, was convicted by the learned Additional City Magistrate XXVIII, Karachi of the offence, under that section and sentenced to two years' R. 1. And a fine or Rs. 1,000 or in default of payment thereof further R. I. For six months. An appeal to the Court of Session seas unsuccessful being dismissed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Mr. Ahmad A.I Qureshi who maintained both the convictions and the sentence imposed by the Magistrate's Court. The matter has now come up in revision before me. 2. The child was brought to the hospital by P.W. 3, Raja Ibrahim who is described at one place as the father and at another as the grand father of the child. It is clear, however, that he is a grand father since the child's father's name is given as Mohammad and the witness is about 70 years old. The exact relationship is really not material in the case but quite clearly the probability is that the witness is the grand-father and not the father. From the Civil Hospital a telephonic message was sent by the Casualty Medical Officer, Dr. Ashfaq, who is P. W. 5 in the case and who examined the child while he was still alive. This telephone message was taken down and is Exh. 7A in the case. It has, however, not been treated as an F. I. R. And what is described on the record as F. I. R. Is Exh. 7D which is lodged by H. C. Wali Mohammad who is the prosecution witness but after the entire investigation was over. Whether or not the earlier recorded message can be treated as an F. I. R. It is quite clear I think that what has in fact been treated as an F. I. R, is not one which can be legally so regarded. The…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492