V. B. BANSAL ( 1 ) SWARN Singh was convicted under Section 279/304a Indian Penal Code holding him guilty for having driven truck No. HRU 4937 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life during night between 10th and llth June, 1986 and causing the death of Sri Bhagwan. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 3,000. 00 or in default simple imprisonment and to rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 279, Indian Penal Code with a further direction that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently by Shri Balbir Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, vide judgement dated 2. 12. 1992 and order dated 16. 12. 1992. ( 2 ) CR. A. NO. 1/93 was filed by Swarn Singh against his conviction and sentence which came up before Shri Dinesh Dayal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and was dismissed on 3. 9. 93. Being not satisfied with the concurrent finding of the two courts Swam Singh has filed this revision petition. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, facts leading to the filing of the challan against the petitioner by SHO Police Station Alipur are that during the night between 10th and 11th June, 1986 DD No. 30b was recorded in Police Station Alipur with regard to an accident of two trucks, Viz. HRU 4937 and HRS 9654, resulting in the death of a cleaner. Copy of this DD entry was given to ASI Ajit Singh who went to the spot and found Ashok Kumar, complainant; Swarn Singh, petitioner, when two trucks were also found parked, involved in an accident and dead body of Sri Bhagwan was also found at the spot. Statement of Ashok Kumar was recorded, who, inter alia stated that he was working as a driver on truck No. HRS 9654, which he was driving on G. T. Karnal Road near Najafgarh and when it became shaky the truck was parked by him on left side and engine was off. It was further stated by him that he alongwith the cleaner Sri Bhagwan was examining the engine of the truck and in the meantime truck No. HRU 4937 driven by Swarn Singh came from Delhi side and hit his truck, as a result of which his truck moved ahead, resulting in the death of cleaner Sri Bhagwan under his own truck. It was also claimed by him that this accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. HRU 4937 by Shri Swarn Singh. ASI Ajit Singh made his endorsement on the statement of Ashok Kumar and sent the same to Police Station Alipur where FIR No. 150 was recorded. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the two trucks were taken, into possession. The accused was arrested and dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Mechanical examination of the two vehicles was carried out by S. I. K. L. Kalra and it is in these circumstances that the challan was filed. ( 4 ) PROSECUTION examined seven witnesses, viz. Naresh, Public Witness /1; Ramesh, Public Witness /2; Ashok Kumar, Public Witness /3; ASI Raj Singh. Public Witness /4; Surinder Pal, Record Clerk, Public Witness /5, S. I. Ajit Singh, Public Witness /6; and K. L. Kalra, Public Witness /7. The accused when examined under Section 313 has denied the allegations and claimed that he was not driving the said truck at the time of the accident and that he has falsely been implicated in the case. He did not produce any evidence in defence. It is with this background that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court and his appeal was dismissed. ( 5 ) I have heard Shri Jagat Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mukta Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. I have also carefully gone through the record. , ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no reliable evidence on record and Ashok Kumar, complainant, is an interested witness, who has falsely implicated the petitioner and the real culprit was allowed to go by the police officer. He has further submitted that it has clearly been admitted by Ashok Kumar that Swarn Singh was not present at the time of recording his statement and he had not seen the petitioner after the impact and till the recording of the statement. which would clearly indicate that the petitioner was not the driver of the truck involved in the accident. which would clearly indicate that the petitioner was not the driver of the truck involved in the accident. He has further submitted that the prosecution has failed to arrange for test identification proceedings to get the petitioner identified and that the statement of the complainant is not corroborated from the evidence of Public Witness /7, K. L. Kalra, who had mechanically inspected the two vehicles since no damage was found on the back of the truck driven by Ashok Kumar or on the front of the truck alleged to have been driven by the petitioner. A prayer has, thus, been made that the petitioner ought to have been acquitted, at least by giving him the benefit of doubt. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, submitted that there was no interest with Ashok Kumar or with the police officer to falsely implicate the petitioner and there is no suggestion at any stage to Ashok Kumar or to the Investigating Officer as to who was the other person driving the truck involved in the accident. ( 8 ) I have examined the record in the light of the aforesaid arguments. This very point was agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the two courts below and the same has been rejected. It has clearly been stated by Ashok Kumar that he had seen the petitioner driving the truck before the impact and he has given the name and address of the petitioner in the statement Ex. Public Witness /3/a, which forms the basis of the FIR. Ex. Public Witness /6 /a is the endorsement of ASI Ajit Singh, Public Witness / 6. who has made a categorical statement that this endorsement was correctly recorded by him. A perusal of the document, coupled with the statement of the witnesses, makes it abundantly clear that Swarn Singh was present at the spot before the arrival of the Investigating Officer and his name finds mention in the statement of Ashok Kumar. There appears to be a mistake in the statement of the petitioner about the petitioner coming to the spot five minutes after the recording of the statement EX. Public Witness /3/a. The petitioner was arrested at the spot and, thus, there was no question of making arrangement for the test identification proceedings. The Mechanical Inspection Reports. EX. There appears to be a mistake in the statement of the petitioner about the petitioner coming to the spot five minutes after the recording of the statement EX. Public Witness /3/a. The petitioner was arrested at the spot and, thus, there was no question of making arrangement for the test identification proceedings. The Mechanical Inspection Reports. EX. Public Witness / 7 /a and Public Witness / 71 B clearly show about the damage on the right side of the truck driven by Ashok Kumar and on the left side of the truck driven by the petitioner. There is no dispute that these are the two trucks which were involved in the accident and Sri Bhagwan, cleaner with Ashok Kumar, died at the spot on account of this accident. I do not find any cogent reason to come to a conclusion different from that arrived by the two courts below. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this incident took place on 11. 6. 1986 and that the petitioner is in custody since 3. 9. 93. He has also submitted that the amount of fine has already been paid and, thus, a prayer has been made for reduction in the substantive sentence. Keeping in view all these facts, I am clearly of the view that ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period for which the petitioner has already been in custody. ( 10 ) AS a result, the revision petition is accepted in part. Conviction of the petitioner is upheld and the order of sentence of the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned appellate court is modified. Maintaining the amount of fine, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period for which the appellant has already been in custody.