The central legal point established is that the identity of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the IPC.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Petitioner was tried by the Court of ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar in a case arising out of FIR No.43 dated 09.06.2011 registered at Police Station Kathunangal, under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 427 IPC. After holding him guilty under Sections 279 and 304A IPC vide judgment dated 10.04.2014, ld. trial Court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for committing the offence under Section 304A IPC besides payment of fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence of 15 days. Petitioner was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for offence under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence was dismissed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 04.12.2014.

3. Against the aforesaid concurrent finding of conviction recorded by the Courts below, this revision has been filed.

4. (i) It is contended by ld. counsel that both the Courts below committed error in convicting the petitioner without any cogent evidence on record. There was no evidence on record to establish the identity of the petitioner as driver of the offending vehicle. No test identification parade was conducted. There was unexplained delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR, which has been ignored. Neither Investigating Officer of the case nor any other police official was examined to prove the steps taken during investigation. Although it is alleged that accident took place at a public place, but no independent witness was examined. The prosecution examined only 3 witnesses, which could not establish the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle and in all these circumstances, petitioner deserves to be acquitted, by setting aside the impugned judgments.

(ii) Ld. counsel also made an alternative submission. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.8 lakh has already been awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased in a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicle Act. Later on, compromise was effected between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased, whereby petitioner paid additional amount of Rs.90,000/- to them. That compromise deed dated 18.05.2015 is Annexure P1 and looking into these circumstances and the fact that occurrence had taken place way back in June 2011 and that petitioner has faced agony of these proceedings for a period of more than 12 years, he may be sentenced for the period already undergone by him.

5. Ld. State counsel has opposed both the aforesaid prayers and defended the impugned judgments.

6. As per the prosecution version on 08.06.2011, Tarlok Singh (PW1) along with Kulwinder Singh, Rinku, Ranjit Singh (PW2), Arvind and Bikramjit Singh were travelling on a tractor trolley from Kathunangal to Abdal. At about 2.00 PM, when they reached bus stop Sahnewali, a truck bearing No. PB-06L-8105 came from behind being driven at fast speed and hit the tractor trolley, toppling the same. All the occupants of the trolley sustained serious injuries. The tractor was damaged. The truck driver fled away leaving his vehicle at the spot. Ambulance came and the injured were shifted to different hospitals. On the statement of Tarlok Singh made to the police on 09.06.2011, FIR was registered. After 3-4 days, Kulwinder Singh died. During investigation, accused was arrested. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Vehicles involved in the accident were taken into possession. After completing necessary formalities of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.

7. Accused (petitioner herein) was charge-sheeted under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 427 IPC by the trial Court. After recording the evidence produced by the prosecution, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he controverted the incriminating material against him and pleaded false implication. However, no defence was adduced.

8. After hea