Judgment MOHD. YAMIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision against the judgment dated 10-4-1989 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. Raisinghnagar in Cr. Appeal No. 43/87 by which he upheld the conviction of petitioner Pal Singh for offence under Section 304-A. IPC passed by learned Judicial Magistrate. Raisinghnagar in Cr. Case No. 112/83. Learned Magistrate had convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 304-A, IPC and sentenced him to one yearts rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that on 9-5-1983 Laduram was driving tractor No. RRK-5625 and was going towards 22 GB. Kaniram and Om Prakash were accompanying him. A trolly alongwtth a thrasher was attached to the tractor. Truck No. RSC-3235 was being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner and dashed against a portion of trolly. Kaniram fell down and died. Truck driver took away the truck. First Information Report was lodged by Laduram. After investigation challan was submitted against the petitioner for offence under Section 304 - A. IPC. Learned Magistrate read over substance of accusation to the accused petitioner who denied it and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. Thereafter accused petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. By impugned judgment the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above. Appeal was preferred on his behalf which was dismissed. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the statements of witnesses by submitting that there are glaring features in this case as the witnesses have not named the petitioner that the First Information Report is a post investigative and, therefore the accused petitioner deserves acquittal. ( 5 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor cited State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri etc. 1, and submitted that the evidence once appreciated and re -appreciated cannot be further re - appreciated by this. Court. In this citation itself, it has been held that when there are glaring features and it appears that an injustice has been done, Court can re - appreciate the evidence. ( 6 ) I have read the statements of two most important witnesses who are said to be the eye - witnesses. Court. In this citation itself, it has been held that when there are glaring features and it appears that an injustice has been done, Court can re - appreciate the evidence. ( 6 ) I have read the statements of two most important witnesses who are said to be the eye - witnesses. They are Laduram and Om Prakash. PW-1 Ladmam stated that he was driving the tractor at about, 1. 00 p. m. and taking it from Motasar to 22 - GB. He further stated that a truck came from behind and dashed against a portion of the trolly. Kaniram fell down from the tractor and died at the spot after some time. He further stated that the truck and its driver were not stopped instead report was lodged at the police station. Thus he does not say anything against the petitioner in his examination in - chief. When he was cross -examined he admitted that accused petitioner Pal Singh was not the driver of the truck at the time when accident took place. He also stated that the FIR Ex. P/8 bears his signature. Ex. P /8 FIR mentions only the number of the vehicle but does not mention the name of the accused petitioner. However, this witness stated that when he went to the police station at 08. 00 p. m. report was not registered by the police. He went next day at about 08. 00 a. m. or 09. 00 a. m. and then report was lodged. Even by that time, he could not know the number of the truck as well as name of the driver. FIR was registered at 1. 00 p. m. on 9-5-1983. The report reached the Court of Magistrate concerned on 10-5-1983. It was PW-4 Bakshish Singh who registered the case on the basis of report given by Laduram. But he does not tell as to wherefrom the number of the vehicle could be known. According to him it was Laduram who reported the case to the police. It means that even the number of the truck was given by PW- 1 Laduram but Laduram does not support it. This is clear from the statement of Laduram as well as from the FIR that by the time report was lodged the name of the petitioner was not known. It means that even the number of the truck was given by PW- 1 Laduram but Laduram does not support it. This is clear from the statement of Laduram as well as from the FIR that by the time report was lodged the name of the petitioner was not known. PW -41 Laduram was not declared hostile by the prosecution and prosecution is bound by his statement. From his statement it is clear that he did not know as to what was the number of the vehicle or the name of the driver. ( 7 ) PW 2 Om Prakash was accompanying Laduram and has stated that the truck came from behind which dashed against the trolly. A portion of the trolly was broken and Kaniram fell down who died. He states that it was he who saw the number of the vehicle as well as the driver. He states the number as R5c3235 and identified the accused petitioner in the Court. But he admitted in the cross-examination that he did not know the accused from before. Identification in the Court without test identification is of no help to the prosecution. Prosecution is not able to say as to how it came to know as to who was the driver of vehicle. PW-2 Om Prakash says that he had seen the accused but did not know his name on the date of incident. ( 8 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the police came to know about the name of the petitioner from Om Prakash but when Om Prakash himself says that the did not know the name of the petitioner on the day of occurrence or on the day when his statement was recorded by Investigating Officer, involvement of the accused petitioner with this crime appears to be, if not false then suspicious. In view of these glaring features the accused petitioner deserves acquittal. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision petition is allowed and the accused petitioner is acquitted from the charge of Section 304 - A, IPC. Revision allowed.