Judgment :- This Revision has been filed challenging the Judgment, dated 12.01.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.181 of 1999 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Prakasham Division, Ongole by which the Judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala, dated 04.10.1999 in Calendar Case No.131 of 1997, convicting the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, has been confirmed. The petitioner hereinafter shall be referred as 'the accused' for the sake of convenience. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: PW.1 - Thatikonda Venkata Subbarao is a resident of Chirala and is a bank employee. He was studying at the time of accident. The deceased Yenduri Venkata Kiran Kumar is the cousin brother of PW.1. PW.1 and the deceased were proceeding to Canara Bank on 31.05.1997 at about 11.00 hours on their separate cycles. When they reached to Vishnu Kumar Cycle Stores, the deceased was proceeding ahead of PW.1. Meanwhile, a lorry bearing No.AHK 2709 came from their behind without blowing horn, dashed the deceased, due to which, the deceased fell down on the ground and the front wheel of the lorry ran over the back of the deceased. The deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. The lorry was stopped at a distance of 15 to 20 feet and the driver of the lorry ran away. PW.2 - Yenduri Koteshwar Rao is the father of the deceased. He has not witnessed the accident. PW.3 - Modadugu Srinivasa Rao and PW.4 - Thatikonda Veeranjaneyulu claimed to have witnessed the accident. PW.1 proceeded to the Police Station and presented a written report in Ex.P1. PW.7 - B.David Raj, who was working as Head Constable, Chirala I Town Police Station, having received Ex.P1 from PW.1, registered a case in Crime No.96 of 1997 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. Then he examined and recorded the statement of PW.1, visited the scene of offence by securing the presence of PW.5 - Thavva Ramanadham and Perumalla Prabhakar, observed the scene of offence and prepared observation panchanama of scene of offence, Ex.P2. He seized the cycle of the deceased, and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Then he examined and recorded the statement of PW.1, visited the scene of offence by securing the presence of PW.5 - Thavva Ramanadham and Perumalla Prabhakar, observed the scene of offence and prepared observation panchanama of scene of offence, Ex.P2. He seized the cycle of the deceased, and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. During the course of inquest, he examined PWs.2 to 4 and recorded their statements. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital for Post Mortem Examination. PW.6 - Dr.G.Koteshwar Rao, Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted Post Mortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and Haemerrhage due to fractures of the skull and crush injuries to internal organs. Injuries were found on the left side of the head and on the face, left fore arm, left thigh, middle aspect of right lower part of the leg. The accused surrendered himself before the Police on the same day. PW.8 - S.V. Ramana Rao, who was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Chirala, during the relevant period, inspected the vehicle bearing No.AHK 2709 involved in the accident, on 04.06.1997 at Chirala I Town Police Station and found that the brakes were satisfactory and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Ex.P6 is the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chirala I Town Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. None was examined on behalf of the accused. The stand of the accused is of total denial. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala believed the prosecution case and found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The accused preferred an appeal but was unsuccessful. Ms. The accused preferred an appeal but was unsuccessful. Ms. Harija, learned counsel, representing Sri M.Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the accused, submitted that when the deceased and PW.1 were proceeding on separate cycles and the deceased was going ahead of PW.1 and when the lorry was coming behind them, it should first hit PW.1, if at all the prosecution version is true. Her main submission is that all the material witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 3 and 4 had no prior acquaintance with the accused, they had never seen the accused before the date of accident and they identified the accused before the Court for the first time and their version is not inspiring confidence. Her further submission is that admittedly, PW.1 was behind the deceased, lorry had over taken PW.1, dashed against the cycle of the deceased, went to a distance of 15 to 20 feet, then stopped and the lorry driver ran away from the place of accident, and if that is the case, PW.1 could not have seen the face of the accused. It is also her case that PWs.3 and 4 also had no opportunity to have a good look at the accused. In such circumstances, their evidence that it is the accused, who had driven the vehicle on the date of accident, cannot be accepted on their face value. It is also her version that if the accused is identified for the first time before the Court, it is a weak piece of evidence and no conviction can be sustained on such evidence. Her further submission is that the investigating officer ought to have examined the owner of the lorry or seized the documents of the lorry to connect the accused with the crime vehicle. Her next submission is that it was a 12 feet road and there was a speed breaker at the place of accident and there was no possibility for the accused to drive the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. It is also her case that no rough sketch of the scene of offence was prepared by the investigating officer and in view of all these discrepancies, the prosecution case should not be believed. It is also her submission that surrendering of the accused before the Police on the same day even at about 7.00 p.m., cannot itself establish the case against the accused. It is also her submission that surrendering of the accused before the Police on the same day even at about 7.00 p.m., cannot itself establish the case against the accused. Ms.V. Sangeetha, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that if at all, the accused was not involved in the accident and he was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident, there was no need for him to surrender before the Police on the same day. The very fact that the accused surrendered before the Police on the same day at about 7.00 p.m., shows his conduct and the same is relevant and a strong circumstance against the accused. It is also her case that PWs.1, 3 and 4 are the direct witnesses to the accident and that they have seen the accused at the place of accident and they are not inimical towards the accused and there is no need for them to speak falsehood against the accused and therefore, their evidence cannot be discarded. It is also her submission that there is no need to hold Test Identification Parade in each and every case and where the witnesses had an opportunity to observe the accused, their version should be believed. It is also her case that though the accused had taken the ground of non-holding of identification parade, the Sessions Court and the trial Court have rejected such contention on valid grounds. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? The then Sub Inspector of Police, who laid charge sheet was not examined as a witness in this case. However, PW.7 - B.David Raj, Head Constable, who registered the case and conducted the investigation, has been examined. He stated that after receiving Ex.P1 complaint from PW.1, he registered a case in Crime No.96 of 1997 and then proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared the observation report of the scene of offence in the presence of PW.5 and another. Ex.P2 is the observation report. The scene of offence is towards North – South of Munthavari Centre. The road is 12 feet width with four feet margin on either side. The lorry was stopped at a distance of 25 feet from the place of accident. Ex.P2 is the observation report. The scene of offence is towards North – South of Munthavari Centre. The road is 12 feet width with four feet margin on either side. The lorry was stopped at a distance of 25 feet from the place of accident. Then he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, recorded the statements of the witnesses and sent the dead body for Post Mortem Examination. It has to be seen that no documents of the lorry have been seized. It is not clear from the evidence of PW.1, whether he had made any efforts to seize the documents of the lorry or not. The trip sheet, driving licence etc., may contain the name of the driver of the lorry and those documents may be helpful to the prosecution to establish the identity of the accused. PW.5 - Thavva Ramanadham is one of the panch witnesses for the observation of scene of offence and he admitted during inquest, that there is a speed breaker at a distance of 15 yards from the place of accident. PWs.3 and 4 have categorically deposed that there was a speed breaker at the place of accident. Had PW.7, the investigating officer prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence showing all these particulars and speed breaker etc., then it would have given a clear picture about the scene of offence. Admittedly, there is no mention of speed breaker in Ex.P2. Observation report was prepared at the place of scene of offence. Of course, these circumstances may show that the investigation may be defective but that itself will not help the accused. The crucial aspect is, whether the identity of the accused had been established or not. Admittedly, the prosecution witnesses have no prior acquaintance with the accused. PW.1 lodged a report to the police in Ex.P1. It is mentioned in Ex.P1 that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AHK 2709 had driven the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The name of the accused is not mentioned in Ex.P1-report as the driver of the lorry. Learned counsel for the accused, submitted that there are major contradictions in the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 which go to show that they were not present at the scene of offence. The name of the accused is not mentioned in Ex.P1-report as the driver of the lorry. Learned counsel for the accused, submitted that there are major contradictions in the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 which go to show that they were not present at the scene of offence. Her further submission is that according to PW.3, the back wheel of the lorry went over the deceased. But according to PW.4, the front tire of the lorry went over the deceased. According to PW.3 - Modadugu Srinivasa Rao, after the accident, the lorry was stopped near the place of accident and the driver ran away. PW.4 - Thatikonda Venkateshwarlu, deposed that after the incident, the lorry covered a small distance and was stopped and the accused ran away. Of course, PWs.1, 3 and 4 deposed that accused drove the lorry at the time of accident. The circumstances that there was no prior acquaintance between the witnesses and accused and the fact that the lorry was stopped at a distance of 20 or 25 feet from the place of accident and the driver after stopping the lorry, ran away from the place of accident, show that the witnesses had no opportunity to have a good look at the accused. In such circumstances, it is obligatory on the part of the investigating officer to elicit the descriptive particulars of the accused from the witnesses and to hold Test Identification Parade, which would establish the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. When a witness, who had no prior acquaintance with the accused and who had seen the accused for the first time, for a few seconds, states to the Police that he can identify the accused, the investigating officers should take steps for holding the Test Identification Parade, wherein the given case, the witnesses had considerable time and opportunity to observe the offender, the situation would be different. When the witnesses identified the accused in the Test Identification Parade and also before the Court, then there may not be any doubt to accept the evidences of such witnesses with regard to the identity of the accused and the same establishes the identity of the accused. The primary object of holding a Test Identification Parade is to enable the witnesses to identify the persons involved in the offence, who were not previously known to them. The primary object of holding a Test Identification Parade is to enable the witnesses to identify the persons involved in the offence, who were not previously known to them. This serves the purpose of saying the bona fides of the witnesses and when the same corroborates, the testimony in the Court, can be safely accepted. However, each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. Thus, the important factor is, whether the witnesses had an opportunity to see the accused or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner had shown some minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but on that ground itself, their version cannot be disbelieved. As far as the identity of the accused is concerned, the Courts below have not considered the issue in proper perspective and the same resulted in miscarriage of justice. In view of the same, it appears that the findings of the lower Court are perverse and the same have to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused are set aside.