JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - The petitioner calls in question his conviction and sentence under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 and 279 Indian Penal Code. Operative part of the order of the trial court with regard to sentence is as under :- "Hence the accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 304-A, six months under Section 338 Indian Penal Code, three months under Section 337 Indian Penal Code and one month under Section 279 Indian Penal Code. All the above sentences will run concurrently." 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 15.2.1983, Suresh Kumar, deceased accompanied by his brother Parkash Chand, PW-5 was on his way to Bazar for purchasing goods and at three-wheeler station, Latish Kumar, Advocate, PW-6 met them. He was hit by Truck No. HRT-477 driven by the accused rashly and negligently which was coming from the opposite side. Suresh Kumar fell down, he was carried to the Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. The said truck hit two rehries and also two other persons. The accused-petitioner ran away from the spot. Statement of Parkash Chand, PW-5 was recorded by Umed Singh, ASI which led to recording of FIR. After completing investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW-5 Parkash Chand in support of its case and whose evidence was corroborated by PW-6 Latish Kumar and two other injured persons PW-7 Ranbir Singh and PW-8 Rajinder Kumar. 4. The accused alleged false implication and stated that he was owner of the truck and he had parked the same in the Union and some one else committed theft of the truck and caused the accident and he was implicated only on account of his being owner. 5. The trial Court held the case of the prosecution to be fully proved rejecting the contention that evidence of PW-5 Parkash Chand ought not to be accepted as the said witness in his statement in Court stated that the accused was already known to him while in his original statement made to the police, he did not make any such claim; the fact that no identification parade was held did not cause any doubt about the identity of the accused; there was no reason to disbelieve PW-6 Latish Kumar on the ground that he was related to Parkash Chand, PW-5. 6. 6. The lower appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. Hence this revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in absence of identification parade and in view of improvement made by the star witness of the prosecution that the driver of the truck was already known to him, the petitioner was liable to be acquitted. 8. Contention on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The Courts below having concurrently held that the prosecution evidence was reliable, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. 9. In Daya Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1188, it was held that if evidence in Court is found to be reliable, then absence of corroboration by test identification could not be in any way material. 10. The plea that there was improvement in the statement of Parkash Chand, PW-5 can also not be accepted. In the initial statement, the said witness stated that name of the driver was not known and in court, the said witness stated that the driver was earlier known to the witness. He explained that he did not know the driver by name but he had seen him in court and recognised him by face. 11. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the incident is more than 21 years old and the petitioner has been facing proceedings throughout this period and having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, a lenient view may be taken on the sentence. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties on the question of sentence, I am of the view that interest of justice will be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to RI for four months under Sections 304-A/338 Indian Penal Code which will be concurrent with the sentences awarded under Sections 337 and 279 Indian Penal Code sentence is reduced accordingly. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Order accordingly.