The absence of a test identification parade does not invalidate court identification if corroborated by reliable evidence, and minor inconsistencies in witness statements do not undermine the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The present revision petition assails the judgment dated 04.05.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 24.04.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palwal convicting the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 304A IPC (in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months).

2. On 11.04.1997, a Matador bearing registration No.DL-ICD- 0779 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Matador') being driven by one Ajit Kumar and carrying 17-18 passengers, was going from Sawar to Mathura. The occupants of the Matador were on a holy trip and were closely related to each other. At about 11:30 p.m./12:00 midnight, when the Matador reached near Village Tumsara (little ahead of Palwal), a tanker bearing registration No.DIG-8931 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') came from Hodal side. It was being driven by the petitioner-accused allegedly in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. It struck the driver side of the matador. The passengers travelling in the matador suffered injuries and were taken to General Hospital, Palwal. The driver of the offending vehicle fled from the spot, leaving the offending vehicle at the spot. One Deepak son of Ram Dhari Singal succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. FIR was registered on the statement of one Sanwal Mal. Investigation commenced. The petitioner-accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. During the trial, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses. No oral evidence was led in defence. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused in the manner referred to in the opening paragraph of the judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment, an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

3. I have learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused strenuously urged that both the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner-accused. It was contended that undue reliance was placed by both the Courts on the untrustworthy evidence led by the prosecution. It was submitted that no test identification parade was conducted and in the absence of the same, the identity of the petitioner-accused did not stand proved. Learned counsel also argued that the complainant Sanwal Mal did not step into the witness box and, therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case against the petitioner-accused. Learned counsel made reference to the statements of the witnesses and pointed out certain inconsistencies and contradictions in the cross examination of these witnesses to contend that the petitioner-accused deserves to be given the benefit of doubt as the statements of the witnesses were not consistent. Learned counsel urged that the mechanic who had examined the Matador and the offending vehicle was not examined in the evidence and, therefore, it could not be proved that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the petitioner-accused. It was contended that against the capacity of 10, the Matador was carrying 17-18 people and, therefore, the driver of the Matador was himself negligent as he overloaded the Matador and the accident appears to have taken place on account of his negligence.

4.1 Learned counsel further contended that PW15-Bala Devi could not identify the accused and in the absence of any test identification parade having been carried out, it cannot be said that it was the petitioner-accused who was driving the offending vehicle. It was contended th