JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J. (Oral): This appeal against the acquittal is directed against the judgment of Shri J. L. Gupta, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan dated 5th May, 1990 whereby both the respondents, namely, Khushal Singh and Amarjeet Singh have been acquitted for the alleged offences under Section 279004-A I.P.C. read with Section 3-5-112/121 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The prosecution case against the respondents is that on 20th Septem-ber.1986, at about 10.30 AM, accused Khushal Singh had taken his Truck No. CHW-4188 and after unloading the same he asked his conductor Amarjeet Singh alias Paramjeet Singh alias Bakhtwar to take the Truck to the weighing machine. After that accused Amarjeet Singh, while reversing the truck pressed one Shri Ghasitu Ram against the wall by his rash and negligent driving as a result of which Ghasitu Ram received injuries of serious nature. When Ghasitu Ram raised alarm, few persons came to the spot of occurrence and took Ghasitu Ram to the District Hospital, Nahan where his statement was recorded by the Head Constable Amarjeet Singh, on the basis of which FIR was lodged against Khushal Singh and Amarjeet Singh. 3. Ghasitu Ram could not be cured at the District Hospital, Nahan and, therefore, he was taken to the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh where on 6th November, 1986 he breathed his last. After investigation, the accused were challaned for the aforesaid offences. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. In their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C, the accused denied the circumstances of the prosecution case put to them, but led no evidence in defence. 5. In the judgment, the learned trial Court has taken great pains to discuss the FIR and its evidentiary value. According to this Court, it was unnecessary for him to do so since it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Since the statement of the injured Ghasitu Ram was recorded promptly by the police in this case, so, despite the fact that it is not a substantive piece of evidence, reliance could still be placed on his statement as incorporated in the FIR, being prompt and having been given without any delay. 6. In the impugned judgment, evidence of PW-2 Laxmi Chand, PW-3 Gian Chand and PW-5 Ganga Ram only has been discussed. 6. In the impugned judgment, evidence of PW-2 Laxmi Chand, PW-3 Gian Chand and PW-5 Ganga Ram only has been discussed. In so far as the evidence of PW-2 Laxmi Chand is concerned it is brushed aside as not being sufficient to base conviction of the accused. In the considered view of this Court, this approach of the learned trial Court is un-called for and against the basic tenats of criminal law and jurisprudence. This witness has categorically stated that Amarjeet Singh, being the conductor and not even the Driver of the Truck was reversing in a rash and negligent manner and without seeing whether any person was standing behind. Gasitu Ram deceased had just unloaded the Truck at that time. Therefore, it cannot be said that the statement of PW-2 Laxmi Chand witness is insufficient to base the conviction against the said Amarjeet Singh. 7. The testimony of PW-3 Gian Chand is only to the effect that the vehicle had already been parked within the premises of Nahan Foundry. In other words, he is not an eye witness to the occurrence. In so far as PW-5 Ganga ram is concerned, he has stated that he did not see as to who was driving the Truck at the relevant time. It appears that this witness has been won over by the prosecution although not stated so in the impugned judgment. 8. In so far as Khushal Singh is concerned, there is not an iota of evidence against him. In any case he was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time and cannot be held guilty. 9. In the considered view of this Court, the sole testimony of PW-2 Laxmi Chand is enough to base conviction against Amarjeet Singh accused. There was nothing in his cross-examination which would have the effect of shaking his integrity. It has been strenuously argued by Shri Bimal Gupta, learned counsel for Amarjeet Singh that there is a finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in this very case in the claim petition preferred before it by the widow of deceased Ghasitu Ram, that the truck was being driven by Khushal Singh and not by Amarjeet Singh. It has been strenuously argued by Shri Bimal Gupta, learned counsel for Amarjeet Singh that there is a finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in this very case in the claim petition preferred before it by the widow of deceased Ghasitu Ram, that the truck was being driven by Khushal Singh and not by Amarjeet Singh. This finding though relevant in that claim petition before the Tribunal, and may also be relevant to some extent in the criminal case, is however, not binding on the criminal Court which has to take an independent view on the basis of the evidence led before it. So, there is no force in this argument. 10. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed to the extent that the judgment of acquittal against Shri Amarjeet Singh respondent is reversed. He is held guilty of the offence under Section 279/304-A I.P.C. read with Section 3-5-112/121 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, in so far as the sentence is concerned, it has to be noticed that the accident took place as far as in 1986. He went through the rigorous of trial for almost four years culminated in the impugned judgment in 1990. This appeal has been pending for the last almost 7 years. For all this he is not to be blamed. At the same time it is to be seen that the sword of Democles and the suspense has been hanging over his head for a long period of 11 years. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice will be met if at this point of time instead of sentencing him to substantive punishment he is given the benefit of probation. 11. Accordingly, while convicting the accused Amarjeet Singh for the aforesaid offences, he is allowed the benefit of probation on furnishing a bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court to the effect that he shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year with effect from the date he furnishes the said bond. The bond will be furnished alongwith no surety in the amount fixed by the trial Court and to its satisfaction. During this period, the respondent Amarjeet Singh shall report at the concerned Police Stations as may be directed by the learned trial Court as and when desired. The bond will be furnished alongwith no surety in the amount fixed by the trial Court and to its satisfaction. During this period, the respondent Amarjeet Singh shall report at the concerned Police Stations as may be directed by the learned trial Court as and when desired. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.