The prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the scope of revision by a private party is limited.

H.R. Panwar, J.-The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 CrPC is directed against the Judgment and order dated 011.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (for short the appellate Court hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 42/2000 whereby the appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by Respondent No. 2 Bhikha Ram and acquitted him of the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, IPC.

2. The Respondent No. 2 was tried in Criminal Case No. 273/1999 and convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rawatsar (for short the trial Court hereinafter) vide order dated 012.2000 for the offences noticed above. However, on appeal, the appellate Court set aside the Judgment and order of the trial Court and acquitted the accused Respondent No. 2.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the Judgment and order impugned dated 011.2004 as well as the order dated 012.2000 passed by the trial Court.

4. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that complainant-petitioner Kalu Khan, lodged a first information report Exhibit-P/1 on 10.1999 stating therein that he alongwith one Santlal was going on Camel-cart. Suddently, a truck being No. RRF-8607 which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver came from behind and hit them. In the said accident, Santlal succumbed to the injuries and the petitioner complainant sustained fracture of leg. It was stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Bhanwarlal and Badriram. In the first information report neither the description of the driver nor name of the driver was mentioned. On the contrary, it was stated that after accident, the driver ran away. However, a notice was served to the owner of the truck under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act. In reply to the said notice, the name of the Respondent No. 2 was disclosed as driver of the said truck. That is how, for the first time the police came to know about the name of the truck driver. During investigation, the driver was not put to identification test. Thus, no test identification was held. Even in the statement of PW. 2 Bhanwarlal and PW. 3 Badriram as also PW. 1 the petitioner complainant, it has not been mentioned that they saw the driver running and they could recognise him. Before the trial Court, the prosecution failed to produce any witness who could have identified the driver driving the truck on the date of occurrence. However, PW. 2 Bhanwarlal and PW. 3 Badriram for the first time stated in the Court that accused present in the Court was the driver. Their statement were recorded in the year 2000 i.e., almost after an year of the occurrence. In their previous statement under Section 161, CrPC they have not stated that they can identify the driver. PW. 4 Sanwarmal who claimed to be witness of occurrence and stated that within 15-20 minutes of occurrence he disclosed the name of driver to Mala Ram. Mala Ram has not been produced as prosecution witness. More so, PW. 1 Kalu Khan, the petitioner, himself does not show the presence of PW. 4 Sanwarmal at the place and time of occurrence. Not only this, even other two witnesses namely PW. 2 Bhanwarlal and PW. 3 Badriram also do not show the presence of PW. 4 Sanwarmal at the place and time of occurrence and, therefore, PW. 4 Sanwarmal is not the witness to occurrence and his presence at the site is doubtful and as such not a reliable witness. The appellate Court, relying on a decision of this Court in Kakku vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1998 RCC page 384 and a decision in Peetram vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2002 (2) CrLR (Raj.) page 980, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that present Respondent No. 2 was the person driving the truck at the relevant time of accident. Notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act has not been proved. PW. 9 Daluram has denied having received and replied the said notice. He did not support the pro