| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 6466 2024 SLD 6466 = 2024 YLR 1157 |
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
Special Criminal Appeal No. D-88 of 2022, decided on 23rd June, 2023.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Abdul Mobeen Lakho, JJ
Muhammad Hamzo Buriro for Appellant. Ghulam Abbas Akhter Awan, along with Muhammad Munir, Traffic Inspector, Khanpur and Abdul Rasheed Sr. Inspector, Khanpur for
Respondents/ Pakistan Railways. Nisar Ahmed Abro, D.A.G. and Karim Bux Janwri, Asstt. Attorney General for Pakistan along with Aftab Ahmed Shar, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State.
Special Criminal Appeal No. D-88 of 2022, decided on 23rd June, 2023.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Abdul Mobeen Lakho, JJ
Muhammad Hamzo Buriro for Appellant. Ghulam Abbas Akhter Awan, along with Muhammad Munir, Traffic Inspector, Khanpur and Abdul Rasheed Sr. Inspector, Khanpur for
Respondents/ Pakistan Railways. Nisar Ahmed Abro, D.A.G. and Karim Bux Janwri, Asstt. Attorney General for Pakistan along with Aftab Ahmed Shar, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State.
ABDUL RAHEEM DAYO---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE and another---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),319,337
Law: Railways Act (IX of 1890)
Section: 101,126,127,128
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 164,342
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 129(g)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 319 & 337---Railways Act (IX of 1890), Ss. 101, 126, 127 & 128--Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)--- Qatl-i-amd, qatl-i-khata, jaifah, endangering the safety of the persons by any rash or negligent act or omission, intentional acts, omissions and negligence of functionaries, maliciously hurting or attempting to hurt persons travelling by railway or damaging property belonging to railway---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding material evidence---Effect--Prosecution case was that due the negligence of accused, accident of train took place, and resultantly, 15 lives had been lost whereas 44 passengers had sustained grievous injuries---Admittedly, the accused was not designated as "Station Master" but he was working as "Assistant Station Master"---Prosecution had not produced any tangible evidence to prove that it was the duty of the "Assistant Station Master" to maintain the Railway track and signal system---Complainant stated that a high level enquiry was conducted in the matter regarding the incident and in said enquiry Divisional Commercial Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer--However, again the prosecution had failed to examine said Enquiry Officer before the Trial Court nor any enquiry report had been placed on the record---Another Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry but said Enquiry Officer had not been produced as witness by the prosecution---Federal Inspector Railway who had inspected the site had also not been examined before the Trial Court---Besides, the prosecution had also not examined any Technical Expert from the Block Station in order to confirm that no fault had occurred in Block Station---In such state of affairs, an adverse presumption under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could be drawn that in case the said persons would have been examined, they would have not supported the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the accused---Appeal was accordingly allowed.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 319 & 337---Railways Act (IX of 1890), Ss.…