Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. Petitioner Subash Chander has filed the present petition against judgment dated July 19, 1989 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby appeal filed by him against judgment dated February 18, 1988 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna convicting him under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, was dismissed. However, sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial Magistrate was reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. Besides this, a fine of Rs. 2000/= was also imposed upon the petitioner. 2. The prosecution version is that on September 17, 1985, Ramesh Kumar deceased was selling soft cold drinks on his Rehri in front of New Bus Stand Khanna. His fathers brother Pritpal Singh was also present there. A car driven by Subash Chander came at a high speed and without blowing horn crushed Ramesh Kumar. It is stated that the aforesaid car was being driven rashly and negligently by the petitioner. After investigation, challan was presented and trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid. 3. Shri K.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the site-plan PD is purported to have been prepared on September 17, 1985 i.e. the date of occurrence. However, in cross-examination, Sarup Singh who has appeared as PW-4, has stated that on the date of occurrence, it had grown dark and, therefore, he went to the spot on the next day and made further enquiries. From this, Shri Ahluwalia submits that it is apparent that Sarup Singh, Investigating Officer had prepared the site-plan on September 18, 1985 and put the date as September 17, 1985. It is further submitted by Shri A.S. Ahluwalia that even Gurmit Singh who was produced as an eye witness to the occurrence, was not named in the F.I.R. 4. On the other hand, Shri Prem Kumar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the entire case by leading cogent evidence and, therefore, no interference is called in the present revision. 5. I have given my throughtful consideration to the entire matters and also gone through the record. 6. It is clear from the statement of PW-4 Sarup Singh that on the date of occurrence, it had grown dark and, therefore, he went to the spot on the next day and made further enquiries. 5. I have given my throughtful consideration to the entire matters and also gone through the record. 6. It is clear from the statement of PW-4 Sarup Singh that on the date of occurrence, it had grown dark and, therefore, he went to the spot on the next day and made further enquiries. In these circumstances, the natural inference which can be drawn from the said statement of PW-4 Sarup Singh is that he had prepared the site-plan on September 18, 1985 but had put the date as September 17, 1985. Thus, it appears that the prosecution has tried to improve its entire evidence led by it and, therefore, it cannot be suggested that it has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Under these circumstances, I set aside the judgment dated July 19, 1989 of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and the conviction of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge against him.