Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 10-8-90 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Singhbhum in Cr. Appeal No.19-C/89 thereby and thereunder the conviction of the petitioner under Sec.338 of the IPC as recorded by Shri B. K. Prasad, Judicial magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in gr Case No.1048 A/83 was confirmed and the conviction of the petitioner under Sec.279 of the IPC was set aside. 2. The fact in short for the purpose of this application is that on 30-61983 at about 7 p. m. the informant, anwar Salim (P. W 3) sitting in a standing tempo near Dhadkidih Chowk under Bistupur P. S. then a truck bearing its registration No. BHT 5811 stopped ahead of the tempo and the driver of the truck got down and went to a betel shop for taking betel leaving the truck in start condition. It has been alleged that the truck began to move backward and though the informant tried to escape from the tempo the truck dashed causing fracture of his hand then he was taken to Tata main hospital and after that this case was instituted at Bistupur P. S. 3. The petitioner claimed himself innocent and denied that he was responsible for the accident. However, trial court in GR Case No.1048a/83 found the petitioner guilty under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for six months each. On appeal preferred by the petitioner in Cr. Appeal No.19-C/89 conviction of the petitioner under section 279 of the IPC was set aside but his conviction and sentence under section 338 of the IPC was confirmed. 4. It is the prosecution case that on 30-6-83 at about 7 p. m. the informant was sitting in a standing tempo near dhadkidih Chowk within Bistupur P. S. then the truck bearing registration No. BHT 5811 came and it was stopped ahead of the tempo but the driver keeping the engine of the vehicle start had gone to nearby betel shop for taking betel. In the meantime, the truck began to move backward and though the informant tried to escape the truck dashed and he sustained fracture on the hand. The appellate Court simply found the appellant guilty under Sec.338 of the IPC. 5. In the meantime, the truck began to move backward and though the informant tried to escape the truck dashed and he sustained fracture on the hand. The appellate Court simply found the appellant guilty under Sec.338 of the IPC. 5. The only point urged before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that admittedly P. W.3 is the only reliable witness as found by the appellate Court and on the evidence of this witness the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sec.338 of the IPC. It was further contended that the informant is PW.3 and he was not known to the petitioner from before according to evidence and further he admitted that the petitioner was not put on TI. P. and for the first time after several years at the time of trial he identified the petitioner in the dock. So identification is not reliable and in support of this contention reliance was placed a in case of the Apex Court reported in 1986 Suppl. SCC 753, Bir pal V/s. State of Haryana. It is true that the petitioner was neither named in the fir nor his name was disclosed to the investigating Officer and simply it has been mentioned that the driver of the truck bearing No. BHT 5811 is responsible for the accident and the petitioner was not put on TIP also. In that view of the matter PW 3 the solitary witness on the point of identification only identified the petitioner in the dock. So identification is definitely not reliable in view of the principle laid down in Bir pals case (supra ). If that is so and if the participation of the petitioner has not been proved in this accident case then his conviction under Sec.338 of the ipc is definitely unjustified. 6. In the result, this revision is allowed and the conviction of the petitioner under Sec.338 of the IPC in GR Case No.1048a/83 as recorded by Shri B. K. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur and confirmed by the Sessions Judge is hereby set aside and the petitioner is also discharged from bail bonds. Revision Allowed.