JUDGMENT : N.N. Sharma, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 8-4-81 by Sri B. I. Sodhi, learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Appeal No. 184/79 by which conviction of revisionists under Sections 280 and 304A of Indian Penal Code as recorded by Sri F. A. Khan, Judicial Magistrate, I, Jaunpur, in Criminal Case No. 993 of 1978, was affirmed. Sentence of revisionists viz. 6 months RI u/s 304A and a fine of Rs. 150/- u/s 280 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, RI for one month was maintained. 2. These proceedings were initiated on written report Ext. Ka. 1 lodged by informant Mewa Lal (PW 1) resident of village Kopkala, P. S. Chandok, District Jaunpur, on 31-5-77 at 2-15 P.M. by which it was mentioned that the informant and his brother Ram Dularey and his uncle Mangru were returning from the temple of Biresa Bir Baba after worship. They travelled by boat and got down at Hariharpur Ghat. There they saw one boat coming behind in which 19/20 persons were sitting; when informant, his brother and uncle alighted from the boat on the northern bank of river Gomati, the boat which was coming behind was at a distance of about 3/4 lathas from the bank. On account of strong easterly wind, the boat began to drift towards cast; the passengers sitting there raised alarm 'Save save'; seeing the boat in a precarious condition the informant etc. jumped into the river; meanwhile the boat capsized; despite all possible efforts on the part of the informant his uncle and brother, thirteen persons could be saved but three members of the family of Nand Kishore (PW 2) and one small boy and one daughter of one Khatik of village Chandok and one of two other persons were drowned in the river. A search for their bodies in the river was conducted in vain. The incident occurred at 1 P. M. 3. On the basis of this report a case was registered in the General Diary and Sri Ram Prasad Singh, SI, reached the spot; it was on 21-6-77 that a case was registered u/s 280, 282 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. 4. The incident occurred at 1 P. M. 3. On the basis of this report a case was registered in the General Diary and Sri Ram Prasad Singh, SI, reached the spot; it was on 21-6-77 that a case was registered u/s 280, 282 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. 4. The investigation of the case was conducted by Sub-Inspector Sri Mukhtar Singh (PW 8); inquest memos were drawn on dead bodies of Srimati Lalita, Lalli, Kumari Rajni, Shyum, Tinku and Srimati Mahodari and an unidentified body (Exts. Ka-7 to Ka-11) in presence of Ranches Surya Nath Pandey (PW 6) and Kashi Math (PW 7). Autopsy was held on dead bodies by Dr. Ft. P. Rastogi (PW 4). On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionists. 5. In their statements revisionists denied to have driven the said boat and alleged their implication to ill will. 6. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of their allegations. Incriminating evidence on record consisted of statements of informant Mewa Lal (PW 1) Nand Kishore (PW 2) and Vijai Bahadur (PW 4) and Ram Kishore (PW 5). The learned trial Magistrate recorded the conviction and sentence. The appeal failed and hence this revision was preferred. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is to be seen as to how far the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charges against the revisionists. In order to attract operation of Section 304A of Indian Penal Code it had to be established that revisionists caused the death of the victims that the act of the revisionists was rash or negligent and the death was the direct result (causa causaus) and not merely cause sine qua non i. e. there must have been a direct nexus between the deaths of the victims and rash and negligent act of the revisionists. 8. 8. On a careful perusal of the evidence on record, I find the conviction and sentence unsustainable for the following reasons: (1) The revisionists were not named in the written-report Ext Ka-l; Ram Prasad Singh, Investigator has not been examined to testify about the manner he learnt about the complicity of the revisionists; Investigator Sri Mukhtar Singh (PW 8) in his statement did not throw any light on this point; Lalji is aged 17 years resident of village Hariharpur, district Jaunpur and stated that he was not plying the boat at the time of occurrence. Banarsi is aged 20 years and Sheo Dhani is aged 16 years; both of them are residents of Hariharpur and denied to have participated in the occurrence. According to them, they were involved on account of ill-will. They further stated that witnesses perjured on account of pressure of police. Informant Mewa Lal (PW 1) did not know these revisionists and so could not nominate them in the First Information Report; at the stage of evidence also he could not recognise these revisionists as the boatsmen. Nand Kishore (PW 2) stated that boat was being plied by Banarsi, Lalji and one Ahir boy; Nand Kishore stated that he could not tell their names to informant Mewa Lal. He did not go to lodge the report although 4 members of his family lost their lives in this occurrence. He explained it by alleging that he lost his self-possession on account of that bereavement. Vijai Bahadur (PW 4) stated that boats were being plied by Lalji, Banarsi and Sheo Dhani; he knew them from before. Vijai Bahadur gave his age as 18 years at the time of occurrence; he is resident of district Varanasi. He denied the suggestion that he was not present on the scene of the occurrence and simply perjured. There were many boats at that place. He was interrogated after 3 days of occurrence; he was not cited as a witness in written-report Ext. Ka-1; he is brother-in-law of Nand Kishore and lived with him. He further testified that he resided at a distance of one and half mile from the residence of revisionists. There were many boats at that place. He was interrogated after 3 days of occurrence; he was not cited as a witness in written-report Ext. Ka-1; he is brother-in-law of Nand Kishore and lived with him. He further testified that he resided at a distance of one and half mile from the residence of revisionists. Ram Surat Pandey (PW 5) testified in cross-examination in that he knew the revisionists, as had seen them earlier 3 or 4 months prior to this occurrence; he did not know the names of their villages or their paternity; he denied the suggestion that the revisionists were not the boatsmen. Under these circumstances, when the revisionists were not nominated in the report, mere mention of their names by these witnesses, who had no occasion to have known them prior to occurrence at the stage of trial could not carry conviction unless it has been tested by test identification parade. The Investigator did not arrange for any test identification parade in this case and there 'is nothing cogent to connect these revisionists with the crime. In Ram Bahadur v. State 1977 ACR 293 it was observed : “The object of holding test identification parades is two fold, namely (1) to satisfy the investigating authorities that a certain person, not previously known to the witnesses, was involved in the commission of the crime and the investigation was proceeding on correct lines, and (2) to furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witnesses concerned tender before the court at the trial. Mere naming of the Appellant by prosecution witnesses before the investigating officer u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be of any avail to the prosecution obviously because the statement made by a witness during the course of investigation cannot be used for any purpose other than that laid down by Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure. It cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence to corroborate the prosecution evidence given at the trial. It could be used only for contradicting the statements of the witnesses examined in the trial court. When the four eye-witnesses did not know the Appellant since before it was the duty of the investigating agency to arrange a test identification parade of the Appellant. In the instant case too the witnesses named the Appellant as the murderer of the deceased at the trial, did not know him before. When the four eye-witnesses did not know the Appellant since before it was the duty of the investigating agency to arrange a test identification parade of the Appellant. In the instant case too the witnesses named the Appellant as the murderer of the deceased at the trial, did not know him before. No test identification was held. The naming of the Appellant by the witnesses in their statements before the investigating officer cannot be relied upon as a substantive piece of evidence corroborating their statements subsequently made at the trial.” The same authority can absolve the revisionists from culpability in this case also. (2) Despite the fact that it was an unfortunate incident in which so many lives were lost, the conviction is not sustainable unless gross negligence and rashness of revisionists is established. Mewa Lal (PW-1) whole lodged the First Information Report and who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence throughout was competent to testify about the cause of the mishap. According to him, the occurrence took place on account of fast easterly wind which resulted in the boat going adrift; persons sitting in the boat in utter panic shouted for help, they ran for the rescue of the passengers but meanwhile the boat capsized. There is not a single word in his statement to show that the boat was over-laden or it was being driven fastly or negligently or rashly so as to attract the operation of Sections 280 or 304A of Indian Penal Code. Nand Kishore (PW-2), who happened to be present in this boat and whose name also occurs in the written report Ext. Ka-1 testified that the occurrence took place as the capacity of the boat was to carry 5/6 passengers; it was over-laden; he did not give the number of passengers; in cross-examination, he stated that 10/11 passengers again entered the; boat; they did not apprehend any danger at that time; he contradicted PW-1 by stating that wind was not fast; it is further significant to note that he did not specify the negligent conduct of the revisionists; he did not mention that the boat was being driven fastly or negligently. Vijay Bahadur (PW-4), whose testimony is doubtful for the simple reason that his name did not occur in the report Ext. Vijay Bahadur (PW-4), whose testimony is doubtful for the simple reason that his name did not occur in the report Ext. Ka-1 gave different reason for the mishap; he testified that boatsmen began to jump on the boat and began to demand dues forcibly which resulted in loss of balance and the boat sunk in the river. It is difficult to believe that the revisionists could have jumped in a manner to imperil their own lives. Moreover, this cause of the incident was not mentioned by PWs 1 and 2; Ram Surat Pandey (PW-4) testified that boatsmen began to demand dues from the passengers, whose number was in between 14 and 18; they began to jump and dance inside the boat which resulted in boat getting imbalanced. While examining the revisionists, no question was formulated by the learned trial Magistrate on the point that negligence of the revisionists consisted in jumping and dancing in the boat which imperilled the safety of the passengers. All these causes which have been introduced at a belated stage to fasten the guilt on the revisionists, were not written in the report. There is no evidence to show as to who was responsible for jump and dance. When the number of boatsmen was three and negligence could have been the result of composite act of all the three boatsmen, it is difficult to believe that all the revisionists worked themselves up a fit of frenzy and jumped and danced without any rhym or reason to imperil their own lives as well as the lives of the passengers inside the boat. Thus, on such flimsy discrepant and shaky testimony, it is not possible to hold that charges under Sections 280 and 304A of Indian Penal Code have been brought home to any of the revisionists. 9. Thus, the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial Magistrate and as affirmed in criminal appeal No. 184/79, are set aside. The revisionists are acquitted of the aforesaid charges. They are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds which are discharged. Fine, if already paid by any revisionist, shall be refunded to him.