The main legal point established is the reliance on consistent identification by injured eye-witnesses and documentary evidence to uphold the conviction for rash and negligent driving resulting in a fatal accident.

H.R. Panwar,J.-This criminal revision petition under Section 397 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code hereinafter) is directed against the Judgment and order dated 18.02.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Pali, Camp Jaitaran (for short the appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2005 whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Judgment and order dated 14.07.2000 passed by judical Magistrate, Jaitaran (for short the trial Court) in Criminal Case No. 763/96 (223/95) whereby the trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 338 and 304-A, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for the offences under Sections 279 and 337. He was also sentenced to undergo one years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months simple imprisonment to the offence punishable under Section 338, IPC and to undergo two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 304-A, IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and fine of Rs. 2,500/-was ordered to be paid to the legal representatives of each deceased person. Aggrieved by Judgment and orders impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the the Judgment and orders impugned. I have carefully gone through the record of the trial Court.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case relevant and necessary for decision of the revision petition are that PW. 3 Yusuf lodged first information report Ex. P/2 with Police Station, Anandpur Kalu, Distt. Pali, inter alia, alleging there in that his younger brother Sikandar was working in D.L.F. Factory. He, alongwith other labourers, was traveling in a truck bearing No. RJ-20-G0870. Due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver, the truck suddenly capsized and his younger brother Sikandar succumbed to injuries on the spot and many others suffered injuries. On this information, police investigated the matter and filed a challan against the petitioner for the offences noticed above. Before the trial Court, the prosecution produced PW.1 Jeevan Ram, PW. 2 Sadul Ram, PW. 3 Yusuf , PW. 4 Narsingh, PW. 5 Shivnath, PW. 6 Jeevan, PW. 7 Poonjilal, PW. 8 Jagdish, PW. 9 Heeralal, PW. 10 Sajan Singh, PW. 11 Ghanshyam, PW. 12 Ganeshji, PW. 13 Jagdish s/o Sonaram, PW.14 Meera and PW.15 Sona Ram and produced the documents Ex.P/1 to Ex. P/16 Accused made statement under Section 313 of the Code and produced DW.1 Manjoor Ali as a defence witness. the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence produced by the prosecution, many of whom are injured eye-witnesses of the occurrence, and relying on documentary evidence including the notice sent to the owner of the vehicle under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the M.V. Act), came to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to establish the case against the accused-petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced as noticed above.

4. On appeal, the appellate Court on reappreciation of the evidence, by an elaborate and well reasoned Judgment came to the conclusion that the trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offences noticed above.

5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the first information report Ex.P/2, the accused-petitioner has not been named by PW. 3 Yusuf . It is further contended that PW.15, Sona Ram the Investigating Officer stated that in the statements of various witnesses recorded by him, name of the dr