Criminal Revision No.2406 of 2007. (1) ***** In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision : 20.3.2008. Chaman Lal son of Karam Chand resident of Kollar (Paunta Sahib). .... Petitioner. vs State of Punjab .... Respondent. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S.Madan. Present: Mr.A.S.Chahal,Advocate,for the petitioner. Mrs.Ravinder Kaur Nihalsinghwala, Sr.DAG, Punjab. R.S.Madan, J. Challenge herein this revision is to the order dated 6.12.2007 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala, whereby he upheld the order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura, and modified the sentence from one year to eight months, without any change in the sentence of fine. The facts of the case are that on 22.11.1995, Swaran Singh son of Dharam Singh, resident of Bakhsiwala, suffered a statement before Head Constable Kuldip Singh, wherein he has stated that he owned a Dhabha at G.T.Road Sirhind Rajpura. Today at about 7.30 am, when he was going to Rajpura for purcahsing vegetables for Dhaba, he noticed forward from him a matador No.DL-2C- 6941 was going. When Matador has crossed the bridge Uppal Heri, then from front side a Truck No.HP-17-3312, with fast speed was coming. Driver of the truck from wrong side hit the truck with matador. Matador has become damage and truck fell into the ditches. Two persons sitting in the matador died at the spot and two unknown persons sitting in the matador become injured. On enquiry, the driver of the disclosed his name Mintu resident of Paunta Sahib, who thereafter run way Criminal Revision No.2406 of 2007. (2) ***** from the spot. On this statement, a case under Section 279, 337, 304-A, 427 IPC was registered. After completion of the investigation, the challan against the petitioner was presented in the court of Ilaqa Magistrate. After going through the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C and the documents attached with it, a prima facie case for the commission of offence under Sections 279/304-A IPC was made out against the petitioner and charge was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of its case, namely, PW1 HC Jagdish Singh, PW2 Swaran Singh, PW3 Dr.Mandip Kaur, who conducted post-mortem examination of some unknown person, PW3 Rajinder Kumar, eye-witness of the occurrence did not support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile and denied his statement before the police mark A (inadvertently numbered as PW3), PW4 Surjit Singh, who denied the accident, PW5 ASI Jangir Singh, PW6 Ram Dass, who is also an eye-witness of the occurrence and resiled from his earlier statement, PW7 Jai Bhagwan, PW8 Gaurav Pathak, PW9 Bhim Sain, PW10 ASI Jawahar Singh, PW11 Constable Balkar Singh and PW12 Pritam Singh Dhiman photographer and closed the evidence. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner pleaded innocence and false implication. He alleged that he did not cause any accident but owner of the truck had a dispute with him and he had left his service and due to his, he got him implicated in this case with the connivance of police. On the completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months Criminal Revision No.2406 of 2007. (3) ***** under Section 279 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 304-A IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Feeling aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who vide his order dated 6.12.2007 dismissed the appeal and modified the order of sentence, as abovesaid. The accused-petitioner has now knocked the doors of this court by filing the present revision petition. I have heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court as well as the first appellate court have failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner has been booked in this case on the basis of the document i.e. driving license, recovered from the truck after six days of the accident. There is nothing on the record to suggest that Mintu is also known as Chaman Lal. It was for the first time that the petitioner was identified by the witness when he appeared in the court. No identification parade was conducted. In this regard, he referred to Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani vs State of Maharashtra 1982 (1) Supreme Court Cases 700, wherein it was held that, “testimony of a witness who identified the accused for the first time in court without knowing him before, in absence of any test identification parade would be valueless and unreliable.” The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fully attracted to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel further contended that the investigating officer Criminal Revision No.2406 of 2007. (4) ***** has also not been produced in this case to connect the accused with the commission of crime as to how and under what circumstances he linked the present petitioner with the accident. The possibility that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case cannot be ruled out because two persons died in the accident and the police did not want to present the case as untraced. The investigating officer has not called the owner of the truck to find out whether he has ever employed the petitioner as driver or the petitioner is also known as Mintu. It is not possible for a person to escape from the spot by disclosing his name to the general public. The investigating agency has conducted the investigation in a most reprehensible manner without understanding its impact on the merits of the case. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been facing the agony of trial for the last more than 13 years. He is, therefore, entitled to protective trial. The petitioner has already undergone more than three months of imprisonment out of the total sentence of eight months so his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. In view of the paculiar facts and circumstances of the case that none of the eye-witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and further that identification of the petitioner has not been proved with cogent and convincing evidence, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the order of sentence and conviction recorded by the courts below are set aside. 20.3.2008 (R.S.Madan) vs. Judge.