JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 15.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.122/2003, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 08.01.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.100/2001 (253/2000), whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Section 279 IPC and was sentenced to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/-and under Section 337 IPC and was sentenced to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/-and under Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.4,000/-

2. In the nutshell, brief facts of the case are that on 18.06.2000 at about 11.45 P.M. Mangla Ram submitted a parcha bayan that he is Driver of the Jeep No.RJ-31-C-1178; in the evening, at about 8.30 P.M. Deep Singh, brother of Sunil-Satyanarayan and nephew Ajaykant were traveling towards Sangaria and he was driving the jeep; at about 10.45 P.M. when they reached near the Satipura Fathak at Hanumangarh a Tankar bearing registration No.RNG 339 driven rashly and negligently, came from the opposite side and collided with their Jeep; as a result of which, Satyanarayan and Ajaykant suffered injuries and were taken to the nearby hospital; later on, Satyanarayan succumbed to the injuries. On account of which, an FIR No.300/2000 was registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Junction for the offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A IPC against an unknown person. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh and later on, the case was transferred to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class Hanumangarh; after trial, the court convicted the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 IPC.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, the Investigating Officer did not conduct test identification parade and during trial PW-2 Mangla Ram has first time identified the accused in the Court. The said identification is highly doubtful as PW-2 Mangla Ram did not know the accused earlier. It is further submitted that the incident occurred in the night and it was not possible to see the Driver of the erring vehicle, who fled away from the place of occurrence, therefore, it is highly doubtful that PW-2 Mangla Ram saw the present petitioner driving the erring vehicle and his evidence is not trustworthy. It is submitted that owner of the erring vehicle has denied that accused petitioner was driving the said vehicle and merely on the basis of endorsement, indicating the accused petitioner as driver, is not enough to hold that the petitioner was driving the erring vehicle, thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that accused petitioner was driving the erring vehicle. It is submitted that the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have erred in their finding, therefore, the revision petition may be allowed and accused petitioner may be acquitted for the offences under Sections 304-A, 279 and 337 IPC.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. He supported the judgments passed by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It is evident from the evidence that no identification parade was conducted by the concerned Investigating Officer and PW-2 Mangla Ram after almost one year of the incident, first time identified the accused in the Court and his examination-in-chief was recorded on 09.07.2001. It is also admitted that the occurrence to