The evidence of identification in court is substantive evidence, and the failure to hold a test identification parade does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible. In appropriate cases, the court may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of instant revision petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 20.04.2016 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the appellate court), whereby judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.06.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class(Electricity Magistrate), Jammu(hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) has been upheld and the petitioner has been sentenced to imprisonment of one year and a fine of rupees one thousand in proof of offences under Sections 304-A and 279 RPC.

2. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that on 27.02.2008 a Minibus bearing registration No. JK02V 0583 was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, while proceeding from Satwari towards Jammu. On reaching near Convent School Crossing at Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, the deceased-Harnam Kour, who was crossing the road, was knocked down by the vehicle in question, as a result of which, she received grievous injuries. She was moved to hospital and in the meanwhile, the driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot. The Police swing into action, registered FIR No. 38/2008 for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 RPC with Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and proceeded to undertake investigation of the case. On 03.03.2008, injured Harnam Kour succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. After investigation of the case, offences under Sections 279 and 304-A RPC were found proved against the petitioner and a charge sheet was laid against the petitioner before the trial court.

3. Vide order dated 05.05.2008, the learned trial court framed charges for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A RPC against the petitioner and his plea was recorded. The petitioner denied the charges and accordingly, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of its case. The prosecution examined PWs Bhopinder Singh, Jagdish Raj, Hardeep Singh, Jasmeet Kour, Vishnesh Kumar and Dr. L. D. Bhagat as witnesses in support of its case. Though the prosecution had cited as many as 15 witnesses in the charge sheet, yet only the afore-named witnesses were examined leaving out other witnesses including the Investigating Officer. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner/accused under section 342 J&K Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied his involvement in the offence and claimed that a false case has been foisted upon him. The petitioner did not choose to lead any evidence in defence.

4. Learned trial court, after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the accident, which resulted in death of the deceased, had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the petitioner/accused. Accordingly, he was convicted of offences under Sections 279 and 304-A RPC in terms of judgment dated 10.06.2015. In proof of offence under Section 279 RPC, the petitioner was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- whereas in proof of offence under Section 304-A RPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

5. The petitioner challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.06.2015 by way of an appeal before the appellate court. The learned appellate court vide its impugned judgment of 20.04.2016 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. It is this judgment which is under challenge by way of the present revision petition before this Court.

6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence through the medium of instant revision petition on a number of grounds but during the course of proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the challenge only to two grounds, one that the petitioner has been convicted on the basis of his dock identification and since he had no previous acquaintance with the prosecution witnesses