JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.— Petitioner was challaned and trial for having committed offences under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunder Nagar. By means of judgment dated 21st September. 1994, he was found guilty of offences under sections 279 and 30-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 279, I.P.C. and also to pay a fins of Rs. 200 and to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 301 A, I.P.C. as well as to pay a fine of Rs 2,000. In the event of default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo 7 days’ simple imprisonment under section 279, I.P.C. and for one months imprisonment for default of payment of fine imposed under section 104-A, I.P.C. Fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs/succession certificate of the deceased-Roshan Lal. 2. When this judgment of the trial Court was questioned in appeal, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, sentence was modified thereby convicting him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 304-A, I.P.C. as well as to pay a fine of Rs, 2,000 and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In the event of recovery of fine, 50% of it, i.e. Rs 1,000 was ordered to be paid to the next of the kin of the deceased. Petitioner, feeling aggrieved by this judgment of the appellate Court below, has preferred this revision petition against his conviction and sentence and has prayed for his acquittal Learned Counsel for the petitioner has forcefully urged that in the present case there is no evidence which can be legally translated against his client and special reference in this behalf was made to the statement of PW-4, the so called eye witness. It was further urged in support of this revision that once the statement of PW-4 is excluded from from the zone of consideration, there is nothing op the basis of which petitioner could be prosecuted much less convicted, as has been ordered by both the Courts below. It was further urged in support of this revision that once the statement of PW-4 is excluded from from the zone of consideration, there is nothing op the basis of which petitioner could be prosecuted much less convicted, as has been ordered by both the Courts below. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that for ail intents and purposes the prosecution has to independently establish its case irrespective of the statement of an accused or his defence which he may put forth during the course of trial. 3. When a reference is made to the statement of Shiv Ram (PW-4), 1 it is clear that he had not witnessed the occurrence as projected by both (the Courts below. In his cross examination he has admitted that he reached the spot after there was noise it has farther come in his statement that his shop is at a distance of 60-70 feet from the shop of Balbir Singh and this accident had taken place opposite the shops of Kartar Singh and Balbir Singh, Balbir Singh has not been examined as prosecution witness and Kartar Singh was examined as PW-1. He has not supported the prosecution case In this view of the matter, the question that arises for consideration is, can the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below in the instant case be upheld ? Answer obviously would be in the negative. The place where the accident hid taken place is a National Highway in Sunder Nagar town. It was expected that ordinarily there should not have been dearth of persons moving on the road who could be produced by the prosecution to support its case 4. Another circumstance which cannot be lost site of is that truck bearing registration No. HIB 1527 at the relevant point of time was admittedly being reversed towards hill side. Ordinarily while reversing a vehicle and especially a heavy one, as in the present case, speed would not be such which can be taken to be abnormal/high, so as to hold that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. That being so, on this count also the prosecution case must fail. 5. An attempt was made by the learned Assistant Advocate General to justify the conviction and sentence of the petitioner as, according to him, statement of Shiv Ram (PW-4) is enough to uphold the same. That being so, on this count also the prosecution case must fail. 5. An attempt was made by the learned Assistant Advocate General to justify the conviction and sentence of the petitioner as, according to him, statement of Shiv Ram (PW-4) is enough to uphold the same. When he referred to the entire statement of this witness, he was not in a position to further advance his submissions while opposing the present revision, petition. 6. A result of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that on the basis of the evidence on record, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner cannot be sustained as there is no evidence much less legal evidence which can be translated against him so as to hold him guilty. Consequently, this revision is allowed and the impugned judgment he set aside thereby acquitting the petitioner of the offences for which he was charged Fine, if deposited, is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner and his bonds are discharged. Revision allowed.