Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Petitioner was nominated as accused in case FIRNo. 100 dated 16.06.1992 registered at Police Station Adampur under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC. 2. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the, Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Hisar under Section 279 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, under Section 337 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, and further under Section 304- A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. 3. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. Same was dismissed by the appellate Court. However, sentence under Section 304-A IPC was reduced from one year to nine months. 4. FIR in the present case was lodged by Bhani Ram. He had stated that on 16th June, 1992, at 4.00 p.m. he along with his brother was travelling in a jeep, which was being driven by Hanuman Singh petitioner. He has hired the jeep. Complainant, his brother Dana Ram and one boy, whose name was Jagpal, were going to village Daroli. When they reached near the bus stand, one head constable and a constable. namely Hoshiar Singh and Phool Kumar also boarded the jeep. When they reached near the Ice Factory, as the jeep was being driven rashly, at a high speed, therefore, when the turn was taken. the jeep turned turtle and stopped in front of the factory gate on the footpath. Due to this, Dana Ram, constable Phool Kumar and Jagpal suffered injuries. Complainant Bhani Ram and head constable Hoshiar Singh arranged one cart and brought the injured to Government Hospital, Adampur. Dana Ram was admitted in the hospital and constable Phool Kumar was referred to Civil Hospital, Hisar. The driver of the jeep fled away from the spot. Jagpal was declared brought dead to the hospital. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that there is no evidence with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the accident as all the witnesses have turned hostile and even PW-6 head constable Hoshiar Singh has not identified the petitioner in Court. 6. In view of the submission made by.the counsel for the petitioner, evidence of the prosecution is required to be noticed. PW-1 Dr. R.K. Chaudhary medico- legally examined Dana Ram. 6. In view of the submission made by.the counsel for the petitioner, evidence of the prosecution is required to be noticed. PW-1 Dr. R.K. Chaudhary medico- legally examined Dana Ram. He found four injuries on the person of Dana Ram. PW-2 Dr. Arun Kumar conducted the postmortem of Jagpal and proved postmortem report (Ex.PW-2/A). PW-3 Mansa Ram had stated that he got the information that his nephew has died in the accident and reached the hospital. He was declared hostile and had not supported the prosecution case. PW-4 Devsi had also stated the same thing and he was also declared hostile as he had not supported the prosecution case. PW-5 Mehar Chand was examined regarding release of jeep on superdari to him. PW-6 Head Constable Hoshiar Singh in the Court had stated that Hanuman was the driver. He was not able to fully recognize the accused Hanuman present in the Court. PW-7 Chander Das proved the Mechanical Test Report of the jeep. PW-8 ASI Om Parkash has proved formal recording of the FIR. PW-9 Jai Parkash had taken the photographs of the spot. He stated that in the photographs, registration number of the jeep is not visible. PW-9 Dr. R.J. Bishnoi had conducted medico-legal examination of Phool Kumar, who has suffered four injuries. PW-10 constable Rajinder Kumar stated that he took the jeep into possession. PW-11 Bhani Ram had not supported the prosecution case and he was declared hostile. He stated that name of the driver is not known to him and he has not identified the accused as driver of the vehicle. He also stated that he is unable to state whether the accused was driving the vehicle. 7. Counsel for the State is unable to state only the incriminating evidence, which can be used against the petitioner, as all witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. 8. In the present case, there is misreading of evidence on the part of two courts below. All material witnesses, except PW-6 HC Hoshiar Singh, have resiled from their previous statements and have not supported prosecution. PW-6 HC Hoshiar Singh, though stated that jeep was driven by Hanuman, has not identified accused in Court emphatically. Therefore, it cannot be said that identity of accused was established by prosecution. 9. Therefore, present revision petition is accepted and petitioner is acquitted of the charges.