Judgment : 1. This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of conviction dated 1-7-2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, II Court, Bidar in CC No. 553 of 2006 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to 6 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-for offence under Section 338 of IPC and further sentencing him to 6 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-for offence under Section 304-A of IPC in default simple imprisonment for one month each on both accounts. 2. The case of the prosecution is to the effect that the petitioner being the driver of Tipper bearing registration No. AP13/W 6516 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Kamathana towards Bidar and dashed against the tractor bearing registration No. KA38/T 872 and 873 coming from the opposite direction thereby he has caused the death of one Ahmed Shah s/o Mahiboob Shah, and caused grievous injuries to Anilkumar, Santhosh, Alison, Jeevan and Nagappa, thereby he is alleged to have committed the offences mentioned above. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 9 witnesses and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P.7. The defence of the petitioner was one of total denial. However after hearing the prosecution and the defence the learned Magistrate was pleased to convict and sentence the appellant as herein before mentioned. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bidar and learned Sessions Judge, Bidar has dismissed the same by judgment dated 27-7-2009 passed in Cri. Appeal No. 47 of 2008. Hence this revision petition. 4. In this case P.W.1-Anilkumar has been examined before the Court he has stated that on 27-1-2006 while coming from Bidar near Veterinary College two persons came in the tipper in a high speed and dashed against the Tractor Trolley. The time was 8 p.m., himself and other co-passenger of the Trolley sustained injuries and one Ahmed Shah subsequently died in hospital. He has stated that the number of the Tipper was AP 13/W 6516, he has identified the driver of the Tipper, he has filed complaint before the police which is marked as Ex. P.1. The time was 8 p.m., himself and other co-passenger of the Trolley sustained injuries and one Ahmed Shah subsequently died in hospital. He has stated that the number of the Tipper was AP 13/W 6516, he has identified the driver of the Tipper, he has filed complaint before the police which is marked as Ex. P.1. In the cross-examination he has stated that when the accident took place, it was dark, so he was not able to see the faces of those persons properly. He has further stated that driver ran away from the spot and did not know the driver previous to the accident. P.W.2-Mohammad Mahiboob is the witness for Inquest report.P.W.3-Santosh is traveller in the trolley. He has stated that accident took place due to the trolley dashing against the tipper but he has stated that he has not identified the driver of the tipper. P.W.4-Multani Mahiboobsab has also taken treatment in hospital, but has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W.5-Jeevan is another eye-witness who has stated that the Tipper was driven by the accused, but he does not knows the number of the Tractor.P.W.6-Wilson is another eye-witness and he has stated that the accused was the driver of the Tipper. P.W.7-Chand Pasha being an eyewitness has stated that he cannot remember whether accused before the Court is the driver of the Tipper. He has further stated that at the time of the investigation Police have not shown the diver of the tipper. P.W.8 Nagendra is another eye-witness. He states that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the Tipper and he has identified the accused as the driver of the Tipper. P.W.9 is the Doctor who has issued wound certificate in respect of the injured persons. It is from the evidence of all these witnesses that the Trial Court convicted the conviction which has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. Heard Sri Anilkumar Navadagi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babashetty. Learned HCGP. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint is filed by one Anilkumar who is P.W.1 in the Court. The identification of the driver has not been mentioned in the complaint, so also the proof of the Tipper which caused the accident. Heard Sri Anilkumar Navadagi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babashetty. Learned HCGP. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint is filed by one Anilkumar who is P.W.1 in the Court. The identification of the driver has not been mentioned in the complaint, so also the proof of the Tipper which caused the accident. The prosecution is silent as to how the number of the Tipper is secured by the police. On a perusal of the papers before the Court it is observed that while trailer was subjected to the motor vehicle examination on 1-2-2006, Tipper was subjected to motor vehicle examination on 14-2-2006. It indicates that the Tipper was not available for examination while the trailer was subjected to examination by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. Further Motor Vehicle Inspector has not been examined in this case to identify the vehicle involved in the case. In the absence of the clinching evidence of the prosecution that the same Tipper was involved in the accident, no conviction can lie. 7. The learned Counsel further submits that a doubt is created regarding the driving of the vehicle by petitioner at the time of accident. P.W.1 in the cross-examination has categorically stated that when the accident took place, there was darkness, so he could not see the faces of those persons properly immediately after the accident. Investigation Officer has not produced witnesses for identification before filing charge-sheet. In view of these discrepancies he submits that the benefit of doubt can be given to the petitioner. 8. Learned HCGP submits that apart from the evidence of the witnesses the document marked as Ex.P.4 indicates that the vehicle Tipper bearing Number AP 13/W 6516 is identified, and the same vehicle is involved in the case and it is proved by the prosecution. Further, he submits that there is no reason why the eye-witnesses examined in this case should be disbelieved. Hence, he submits that the tipper was identified by the eye-witnesses during the spot mahazar and hence he submits that the learned Trial Court Magistrate is right in convicting the petitioner and in the circumstances he submits that no interference is called for. 9. Hence, he submits that the tipper was identified by the eye-witnesses during the spot mahazar and hence he submits that the learned Trial Court Magistrate is right in convicting the petitioner and in the circumstances he submits that no interference is called for. 9. On careful observation of the materials on record, FIR, averments in the Inquest Report, Spot Panchanama and also motor vehicle inspection report a doubt is created regarding the involvement of the very same vehicle in the accident. While the motor vehicle inspection report states that trailer has inspected on 2-2-2006 and that tipper was tested on 14-2-2006 and in the spot Panchamma-Ex.4 there is a correction of changing the date, that it is made to appear as if the same was executed on 28-1-2006, it is obvious that there is a correction regarding the month from “2” to “1”. This correction tallies with the motor vehicle inspection certificates and no explanation is given as to why the Tipper has been tested after 14 days of the date of incident. If really tipper was available on 28-1-2006 nothing prevented the police to subject it to the motor vehicle inspection report immediately. This is because, the FIR does not contain the number of vehicle which caused accident. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that evidence of Investigation Officer, is very much essential to prove the case. Complainant does not disclose as to how he came to know the number of the tipper. In the absence of the evidence of the Investigating Officer the connection of the vehicle with the accident is not established beyond reasonable doubt. In that view of the matter I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this revision petition. Accordingly revision petition is allowed. 10. The order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate and order in appeal by the Session Judge are set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the offence leveled against him. Bail bond if any executed by the appellant is cancelled. Fine amount if any deposited shall be refunded by the appellant.