Case Details

Citation(s)
1977 SLG 1787 1977 SLD 1787 1977 PCRLJ 138
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. 105 of 1973, 27th August, 1977
MUHAMMAD A. RASHID, 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

Rogers

VS

The State

Law:

Section:

Keywords: Set Aside, Negligence, Prosecution, Defence, Conviction, Claims, Order, Evidence Result: Appeal allowed JUDGMENT This Revision Application seeks to revise order of learned Sessions Judge, Karachi, passed in appeal against the conviction of the applicant by S. D. M., Old Town, Karachi. 2. The brief facts are that on 27th October, 1969, at about 5-00 p.m., the applicant, who was driving bus No. KAX-9480, while driving rashly and negligently, hit a pedestrian Iqbal near Sirtaj Hotel. The prosecution alleges that P. W. Muhammad Hanif, traffic constable, had stopped the traffic to enable the pedestrians to cross the street over the zebra-crossing. Deceased Iqbal was the last of those who were crossing the street. The bus of the accused driver is alleged to have hit Iqbal who fell down on the ground in an unconscious condition receiving the head injury. The bus stopped after about one or two paces. 3. The prosecution examined P. W. Muhammad Hanif, Traffic Con stable, P. W. Noor Muhammad, who owns a cabin shop outside Sirtaj Hotel and claims to have seen the incident; and P. W. Muhammad Ayub, another shopkeeper adjacent the Sirtaj Hotel. Other prosecution witnesses are formal. 4. The applicant alleges that it was not he who hit deceased Iqbal, but a rickshaw driver who after hitting him turned into a bye-lane and vanished. He stopped his bus and was falsely implicated by the Police. He has examined 3 witnesses in support of his story, which apart from the conductor Kifayatullah, includes two independent persons namely P. W. 1 Arif, and P. W. 2 Yousuf, who claim to be present at the scene of occurrence. 5. The question whether the defence story has been substantiated or not is not material. The important question is whether the prosecution has proved element of rashness and negligence on his part. In Abdullah v. The State (1968 P Cr. L J 1416) it was held that mere statement of prosecution witnesses that a bus carrying 40 to 50 passengers was being driven by the accused at a very fast speed, without giving particulars, would not necessarily indicate that the bus was in fact being driven at a very fast speed, specially m the absence .Of indication of an…
πŸ”’
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