The judgment established the admissibility of evidence, the necessity of a test identification parade, and the principles of probation and mitigating circumstances in sentencing.

Surya Kant, J.

1. This criminal revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18/19 April, 1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Charkhi Dadri, holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Sections 279, 337/304-A, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months along with fine of Rs. 500.00 under Section 279, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 337, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500.00 in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 304-A, IPC, as well as against the judgment dated 13-9-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani whereby the petitioners appeal against the aforementioned judgment and order dated 18-19 April, 1991 was partly allowed to the extent that his sentence under Section 304-A, IPC was reduced from one year RI to 9 months RI and the fine was reduced from Rs. 1500.00 to Rs. 500.00 in default whereof he was directed to undergo RI for two months. However, the petitioners conviction and sentence under Sections 279, 337, IPC were kept intact.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24-6-1985, the complainant-Om Parkash along with Satbir s/o Ganga Dutt (since deceased) was present near Puran Cinema by the side of bus stand at Charkhi Dadri when a car bearing No. DHB-5638 allegedly being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner came from the side of Loharu Road and firstly hit one Smt. Khazani and then Om Parkash and Satbir. The driver of the car, however, ran away with the car. The injured were taken to the General Hospital, Dadri where they were medico-legally examined and information was sent to the Police Station which led to the registration of the case on a statement made by injured -Om Parkash. One of the injured, namely, Satbir was referred to the Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak. Later on, the said Satbir unfortunately succumbed to the injuries he had suffered and, as a result of which Section 304-A, IPC was also added. The petitioner was arrested and put to trial.

3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The petitioner in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. denied to have caused the accident in question and took up the plea that he was not driving the car at all. No defence evidence was, however, led by him.

4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner guilty under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, IPC and sentenced him accordingly, as referred to above. His conviction was also upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge prompting him to approach this Court through this Criminal Revision Petition which was admitted on 20-9-1991 and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani.

5. I have heard Shri U. D. Gaur, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Yashwinder Singh, learned Assistant A.G. Haryana on behalf of the State and have perused the record with their assistance.

6. The main thrust of argument made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no legally admissible evidence has been produced by the prosecution to establish the petitioners identity as the driver of the delinquent vehicle. Shri Gaur contended that P.W. 1 Satbir Singh s/o Dariya Singh who was present at the spot and witnessed the accident, has categorically deposed that he was unable to recognize the driver of the car. Similarly, P.W. 2 (Lakshmi Narain s/o Hari Singh) who is also an eye witness to the occurrence, too has categorically deposed that he did not recognize and/or know as to who was driving the car in question. Shri Gaur then contended that though P.W. 3 (Constable Om Parkash), who is also the injured - complainant, has deposed that the car in question was being driver by the petitioner but in his cro