The testimony of injured witnesses carries significant weight in establishing the truth of the occurrence, and the non-examination of the investigating officer and expert mechanic may not be fatal to the prosecution's case if the credibility of eyewitnesses remains intact.

1. In the instant Criminal Revision, petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of judgment dated 23.05.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ramnagar convicting the petitioner for one and half years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 304-A, 279, 337, 338 RPC read with Section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the judgment dated 09.04.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur upholding the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ramnagar dated 23.05.2002.

2. In the petition, it is stated that the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338 RPC read with Section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a simple imprisonment of one and half years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- vide judgment dated 23.05.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ramnagar in a criminal file No.31, on the basis of a charge sheet presented by Officer Incharge Police Station Ramnagar in FIR No.78/1999. It is further stated that the prosecution had examined witnesses after the petitioner pleaded not guilty, the petitioner has not examined any witnesses in defence and the trial Court convicted the petitioner. Aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Udhampur, which was also dismissed on 09.04.2003. The petitioner challenges both the judgments and prays for setting aside the same and the petitioner be acquitted on the following grounds:-

(a) That the evidence adduced by the prosecution has not been appreciated by the trial Court properly which caused miscarriage of justice.

(b) That the investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution and the non-examination of the investigating officer goes to the root of the case and therefore the conviction is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

(c) That the petitioner was not driving the vehicle involved in the accident. The petitioner is not known to any of the prosecution witnesses as he is a resident of a different place but his name has been planted by the Investigating Officer to save some influential person who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident.

(d) That no identification parade has been conducted by the Investigating Officer during the investigation.

(e) That the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in FIR at the time of its registration. From the perusal of the charge sheet it transpires that his name was included during investigation. Neither the petitioner was present at the time of alleged accident nor he was arrested immediately thereafter. Non-mentioning of driver’s name in FIR indicates that none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution had either seen him or knew his name. It is only afterwards that the police manipulated the induction of petitioner’s name as driver of the offending vehicle for saving the actual culprit. It is further submitted that none of the witnesses had indicated the conductor’s name, who received the bus fare from them, although the conductor had come in direct contact with every passenger witness during their journey by the bus. All the injured witnesses were induced by the prosecution for wrong identification of the petitioner as driver of the offending vehicle for the success of their compensation claims before the MACT. The witnesses were given the false impression that if they failed to implicate the petitioner, their claims before the MACT would fail. That is why all the witnesses in one voice have named the petitioner as drier of the ill fated vehicle and have neither identified the conductor nor taken his name. Hence the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding identification of the petitioner as driver cannot be relied upon and therefore the conviction is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

3. Vide order dated 01.05.2003, the instant petition was admitted, notice was issued, operation of impugned sentence was suspended and the accused-petitio