The burden of proof rests on the prosecution, and in doubt, the presumption of innocence prevails.

JUDGMENT :

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

1. The instant revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, vide judgment dated 16.05.2006, whereby the revisionist-accused Jaswinder Singh was convicted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as follows:-

2. The judgment of the learned JMIC was thereafter upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 22.08.2009. The conviction arises out of FIR No.369 dated 23.05.2001 under Sections 304-A/279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , registered at Police Station Samana, District Patiala (Ex.PW6/C).

3. The case of the prosecution, as noticed in the FIR as lodged by Budh Singh (PW2), son of Sukhdev Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), is that on 23.05.2001, around 2.00 p.m., the deceased was coming on a bicycle from Village Fatehgarh Channa. As he turned towards his fields, a Mahindra jeep bearing registration No.PB-11H-5904, driven rashly and negligently at high speed from Bhawanigarh side by petitioner Jaswinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’), struck the bicycle. 4. Due to the impact, the deceased fell and sustained grievous injuries, resulting in his instantaneous death. The jeep, after the collision, went out of control, dashed into a kikkar tree and overturned. The driver (accused) allegedly managed to escape from the spot, leaving the jeep behind.

5. Investigation commenced. The jeep and damaged cycle were seized vide separate recovery memos (Ex.PW6/E and PW6/F). Rough site plan (Ex.PW6/G) was prepared, inquest proceedings (Ex.PW6/H) carried out, and the body sent for postmortem. The accused was arrested the next day i.e. 24.05.2001.

6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined the following six witnesses:-

i. PW1 HC Rajinder Singh (Mechanic), who tested the jeep and submitted his report (Ex.PA);

ii. PW2 Budh Singh (complainant/eyewitness). He reiterated the version given in the FIR and identified the accused as driver of the jeep;

iii. PW3 Gurjant Singh (another eyewitness) corroborated the testimony of PW2 Budh Singh qua rash and negligent driving by the accused

iv. PW4 Dr. Majit Singh, who conducted postmortem of the deceased and proved report (Ex.PW4/A);

v. PW5 Sham Lal (Junior Assistant, DTO Office) produced record of the driving license of the accused.

vi. PW6 HC Chajju Singh (Investigating Officer) proved FIR, site plan, recovery memos, and inquest.

7. The accused, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all allegations and pleaded false implication. No defence evidence was led.

8. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, convicted the accused under Section 304-A IPC but acquitted him under Section 279 IPC . Appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala was dismissed on 22.08.2009.

9. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the revisionist has assailed the conviction of the accused on the following grounds:-

(I) It has been urged that the Courts below erred in convicting the accused without ascertaining whether he was indeed the driver. The jeep, after collision, had overturned upon hitting the kikkar tree. It was practically impossible for the driver to break loose and flee. Neither PW2 Budh Singh nor PW3 Gurjant Singh actually saw the driver escaping. No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to establish the identity of the driver of the jeep.

(II) Learned Amicus Curiae further argued that the site plan (Ex.PW6/G) suppressed the di