S.G. SHAH, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. R. M. Agrawal for the appellant and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent – State. Perused the record.

2. The appellant is challenging his conviction by judgment and order dated 14.12.2001 by Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 271 of 1999. By such impugned judgment, the appellant has been awarded sentence of 18 months rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) with fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. of two months for the alleged offence u/s.304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has also been awarded additional three months’ R.I. with fine of Rs.200/- and in default, additional one month R.I., but with a direction to undergo all such imprisonment simultaneously. Thereby, total sentence would be 18 months’ R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-. The appellant has already deposited the fine of Rs.300/- on 14.12.2001.

3. The case of the prosecution before the sessions court is to the effect that on 12.9.1998, at about 10.30 p.m., one truck-trailer No.GJ-1U-4122 was driven in rash and negligent manner from Narol towards Cadila Railway over bridge and near Jashodanagar four roads, where there was a public meeting of District Congress Committee, such truck has dashed with the pedestrian and gathering of the public in such public meeting and thereby, injured staff persons and committed offences u/Secs.323, 325, 304 etc. of the IPC. Because of such vehicular accident, as many as three persons had died and therefore, offence was registered u/s.304 and tried by the sessions court. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that the vehicle was driven by the present appellant and therefore, sessions court has after trial, held the appellant guilty for the charges levelled against him and awarded sentence, which is referred herein above.

4. For proving guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and produced 33 documentary evidence before the sessions court. However, perusal of such oral evidence makes it clear that, practically, there is no clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt to confirm that in fact, appellant was the only person, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, since there was no identification parade and presence of appellant was never proved and confirmed at the place of incident and none of the witnesses had confirmed that they have seen the appellant on steering wheel of the trailer by which three persons had died and some were injured.

5. The crux of prosecution witnesses in brief is summarised in following table:-

Prosecution witness	Exhibit	Identification	Comments
PW-1	44	Injured P.S.I.	Does not know the name of the driver. Did not see the driver since he has absconded. No part of the trailer was dashed with him.
PW-2	45	Injured Police Constable	Does not know that who was driver. There was huge gathering at the place.
PW-3	46	Injured Police Constable	Does not know that who was driver. There was huge gathering.
PW-4	47	Injured Police Constable	Does not know that who was the driver and there was huge gathering at the place.
PW-5	48	Panch Witness	Admits that he has signed several panchnamas as asked by the police. Did not see the driver and trailer.
PW-6	50	Panch Witness	Did not see that how many persons were in the trailer. Does not know about the driver of the vehicle. There was huge crowd.
PW-7	52	Injured Victim	Does not know that who was driving the vehicle.
PW-8	53	Inspector of Motor Vehicle (IMV) – RTO Office.	Opined about condition of vehicle, but not aware about the driver.
PW-9	56	Doctor	Perused the injury certificates and PM note, but could not confirm the presence of driver.
PW-10	57	Doctor	P