Nabi Bakhsh V. The State,
MLD 2020 1580 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved a road accident where a passenger vehicle overturned, killing three women and injuring several others. The driver, Nabi Bakhsh, was tried and convicted by a trial court for causing death by rash and negligent driving and for causing injuries to passengers, and was sentenced to pay compensation (Diyat, Daman, and Arsh) as well as imprisonment.
On appeal, the Balochistan High Court found serious flaws in how the trial court had reached its verdict. None of the witnesses who were actually present at the accident testified that the driver had been negligent, and the complainant himself was declared a hostile witness. Instead of properly weighing this evidence, the trial court had convicted the driver mainly based on his own statement during questioning, where he admitted the accident happened but blamed it on a mechanical failure (a broken tie-rod). The trial court rejected this explanation partly by inspecting the vehicle itself many months after the accident, without any proper mechanic's report confirming its condition right after the crash.
The High Court held that courts must first independently assess whether prosecution witnesses are credible before turning to the accused's own statement, and cannot selectively accept only part of that statement. Since no witness supported the claim of rash or negligent driving, and speeding alone isn't enough without proof of negligence, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant. The case highlights the importance of proper procedure and solid evidence, not assumptions, in criminal convictions.
یہ مقدمہ ایک سڑک حادثے سے متعلق تھا جس میں ایک مسافر گاڑی الٹ گئی، جس کے نتیجے میں تین خواتین جاں بحق اور کئی دیگر افراد زخمی ہو گئے۔ ڈرائیور نبی بخش پر مقدمہ چلایا گیا اور ٹرائل کورٹ نے اسے تیز رفتاری اور غفلت سے گاڑی چلا کر موت کا باعث بننے اور مسافروں کو زخمی کرنے کا مجرم قرار دیتے ہوئے دیت، ضمان اور ارش کی مد میں معاوضے کے ساتھ ساتھ قید کی سزا بھی سنائی۔
اپیل پر بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے تک پہنچنے کے طریقہ کار میں سنگین خامیاں پائیں۔ حادثے کے موقع پر موجود کسی بھی گواہ نے یہ بیان نہیں دیا کہ ڈرائیور نے غفلت برتی تھی، بلکہ خود مدعی کو بھی عدالت نے حریف گواہ (ہوسٹائل وٹنس) قرار دے دیا۔ اس شہادت کو مناسب طریقے سے پرکھنے کے بجائے ٹرائل کورٹ نے ڈرائیور کو بنیادی طور پر اس کے اپنے بیانِ زیرِ دفعہ 342 کی بنیاد پ