The court upheld the conviction based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, rejecting the petitioner's contentions regarding identity and manner of driving.

JUDGMENT

Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - Bir Chand has filed this petition against the judgment dated July 6, 1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which his conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Panel Code, awarded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, was upheld. However, his sentence under Sections 304-A, Indian Panel Code, has been reduced from 1-1/2 years to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. His sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- under Section 279, Indian Panel Code, has, however, been maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

2. The petitioner, who was allegedly driving truck No. HRR-7588 on October 27, 1984, is alleged to have hit Motorcycle No. DHN-8978 being driven by Mahinder Singh on the National Highway near the main crossing of Ballabagh town, and thereby causing fatal injuries to Mahinder Singh and his wife Smt. Sheela (also described as Avinash Kaur), who was a pillion rider on the motorcycle. The petitioner fled away from the spot after leaving the truck there. The occurrence was witnessed by Manjit Singh P.W., who happened to be standing on the road outside his workshop, and Mool Chand P.W. Both the injured were removed to the local hospital. However, as the condition of both of them was serious, they were taken to the All Indian Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, where both the injured died.

3. Report of the occurrence was lodged by Manjit Singh with S.I. Raghbir Singh of Police Station City, Ballabagh, who happened to be patrolling nearby. On the basis of the statement made by Manjit Singh, formal first information report (Ex. PB/2) was recorded by S.I. Shiv Nath at the Police Station. Both the truck and the motor cycle were taken into possession by the Police.

4. Post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Mahinder Singh and his wife Smt. Sheela (also described as Avinash Kaur) was conducted.

5. S.I. Raghvir Singh recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code He also prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence. The petitioner was arrested and challaned on completion of the investigation.

6. The petitioner was charged and tried for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Panel Code, by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad.

7. In order to bring home the charge against the petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Manjit Singh and Mool Chand, who were eye- witnesses of the occurrence, appeared as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and supported the case of the prosecution as detailed above.

8. When examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he was not driving the truck on the material date and time at the place of occurrence. He maintained that he had been falsely implicated. No evidence in defence was led by the petitioner.

9. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment. The appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have examined the record in evidence.

11. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the identity of the petitioner could not be proved as no identification parade was conducted. According to the learned counsel, both the eye-witnesses were not earlier known to the petitioner. Thus, it was not possible for them to identify him.

12. I do not find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner fled away from the spot after alighting from the truck. At that time both the eye-witnesses were at the spot. They had seen him while running from the