Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Parshotam Dutt son of Dwasi Ram was tried in case FIR No.125 dated 11.11.1990, registered at Police Station Dasuya, under Sec.304-A, 279 and 427 IPC. He was put to trial and the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial magistrate, Dasuya, convicted for offence under Sec.304-A IPC and sentenced accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, petitioner filed an appeal. Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, found no merit in the appeal and the same was dismissed on 20.11.1996 Briefly stated, case of prosecution is that on 11.11.1990, petitioner was a driver of truck bearing No. JK-02-6386. The truck driven by the petitioner hit a scooter bearing No. MP-04-C-2567. Due to accident, Paramveer singh, driver of scooter and Balwinder Singh, pillion rider, suffered injuries and became unconscious. They were taken to hospital where they were declared dead by the doctor. This occurrence was witnessed by Boor Singh, father of paramveer Singh. He stated that on that day, he along with his son Paramveer singh, his wife Kulwinder Kaur, his daughter Surinder Kaur, and her husband balwinder Singh had gone to village Nangal Lobana to perform engagement ceremony of his younger daughter. At about 4.00 P. M. , he along with Surinder kaur and Kulwinder Kaur was coming in a Maruti Car which was driven by Manjit singh, whereas his son Paramveer Singh and Balwinder Singh were coming on a scooter ahead of Maruti car when the accident took place. On basis of the FIR lodged by Boor Singh, case was investigated and challan was submitted. Thereafter, charge was framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 304- A IPC on the ground that due to rash and negligent driving, death of two persons had taken place. 3. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined seven witnesses. PW.3 boor Singh, complainant, and PW.4 Manjit Singh, driver of the Maruti car, appeared as eye witnesses. Mr. C. L. Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has very fairly stated that two Courts below have appreciated the evidence and have returned a finding that the prosecution case aspire confidence. But according to Mr. PW.3 boor Singh, complainant, and PW.4 Manjit Singh, driver of the Maruti car, appeared as eye witnesses. Mr. C. L. Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has very fairly stated that two Courts below have appreciated the evidence and have returned a finding that the prosecution case aspire confidence. But according to Mr. Sharma two Courts below have ignored the fact that witnesses had stated that the accused was not known to them; the accident had taken place on the spur of moment and petitioner belong to Kathua, falling within the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It has been admitted by the witnesses that they had no acquaintances with the accused. Prosecution had not held any identification parade and, therefore, prosecution had miserably failed to prove the identity of the accused as driver of the offending truck. To fortify this submission, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Suresh Chandra Bahri V/s. State of Bihar 1994 (3) Recent Criminal reports 1. Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon Amit singh Bhikamsingh Thakur (SC) 2007 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 618 to state that identification of the accused in the Court for the first time is insignificant and should not be relied upon to hold accused guilty. Two Courts below have taken into consideration the statement made by accused under Sec.313 cr. P. C. wherein he stated that he was present at the spot not as a driver of the truck but as a cleaner. According to the accused, driver of the truck was vaishno Dutt. Taking his statement into consideration, two Courts below held that the same corroborated the testimony of two witnesses and held petitioner to be guilty. Once accused had admitted his presence at the spot, the onus upon the prosecution to establish identity of the accused cannot be strictly construed. Furthermore, two Courts below have held that the testimony of eye witnesses aspire confidence. 4. This Court, on 22.2.2008, had requisitioned the record. But it has been reported by the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide letter No.10-D dated 11.3.2008, that the record was destroyed in a fire. Mr. Sharma has stated that if the argument regarding identification is not accepted, he will pray to this court that the sentence awarded upon the accused be reduced as he has already suffered agony and pain of the protracted trial. Mr. Sharma has stated that if the argument regarding identification is not accepted, he will pray to this court that the sentence awarded upon the accused be reduced as he has already suffered agony and pain of the protracted trial. Counsel has further stated that in the present case, occurrence had taken place on 11.11.1990. Petitioner is already in corridors of the Courts for the last 19 years. He further submitted that the petitioner had already undergone about 15 days of his actual sentence. Once this Court has rejected the argument regarding the identification of the accused and has found no patent illegality in the judgments of two Courts below and maintained the conviction, this Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that due to accident, two persons had died. This is an aggravating circumstance. However, sufferance of protracted trial by the accused is also a mitigating circumstance, therefore, this Court has to balance these circumstances, while sentencing the accused. To send the accused behind the bars after 18 years of occurrence in itself depict state of affairs which are prevailing and deny the accused right of speedy trial. Culmination of proceedings including disposal of revision by this Court had taken eighteen years and domcels sword was hanging on the head of accused, which in itself is painful experience. Thus, to sum up, ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence is reduced from one year to eight months. 5. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of.