JUDGMENT 1. - The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.06.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Rajsamand, whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the judgment dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand wherein the learned Magistrate had convicted the accused respondent, Jamna Lal, for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that on 23.02.2002, Mangilal (P.W.1) submitted a written report wherein he claimed that he and his son Jamna Lal (P.W.2) were travelling on a vehicle from Sundercha to Rajnagar. When they reached near Rajnagar bus-stand and turned towards Rajnagar, a jeep, bearing registration No.RJ 3- C 2179 came from behind. The said jeep was being driven by the accused-respondent, Jamna Lal in a rash and negligent manner. Initially, the jeep hit a scooter driven by Sanjay Dutta. Sunita (P.W.7) was also riding on the scooter alongwith her husband, Sanjay Dutta. Both Sunita and Sanjay Dutta sustained injuries due to the said accident. Subsequently, the jeep collided with his vehicle. Thereby, his son, Jamna Lal also sustained injuries. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, FIR No.61/2002, was chalked out for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. 3. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses, and submitted fifteen documents. However, the defence neither submitted any documents, nor examined any witness. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 24.11.2006, the learned Magistrate convicted Jamna Lal for the aforementioned offences and sentenced him as follows:- 4. For offence under Section 279 IPC, he was sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and was imposed with a fine of Rs. 100/- and was directed to further undergo a simple imprisonment of seven days in default thereof. 5. For offence under Section 337 IPC, he was sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and was imposed with a fine of Rs. 100/- and was directed to further undergo a simple imprisonment of seven days in default thereof. 6. For offence under Section 338 IPC, he was sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and was imposed with a fine of Rs. 100/- and was directed to further undergo a simple imprisonment of seven days in default thereof. 7. 100/- and was directed to further undergo a simple imprisonment of seven days in default thereof. 6. For offence under Section 338 IPC, he was sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and was imposed with a fine of Rs. 100/- and was directed to further undergo a simple imprisonment of seven days in default thereof. 7. For offence under Section 304A IPC, he was sentenced to two years' simple imprisonment and was imposed with a fine of Rs. 100/- and was directed to further undergo a simple imprisonment of seven days in default thereof. It was also directed that all the offences run concurrently. 8. Since the accused-respondent was aggrieved by the said judgment, he filed an appeal before the learned Judge. Vide judgment dated 21.06.2008, the learned Judge acquitted the accused-respondent and quashed and set aside the judgment dated 24.11.2006. Hence, the present criminal before this Court. 9. Mr. O.P. Singharia, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The learned Judge has overlooked the testimony of Sunita Dutta (P.W.7) who has clearly clearly stated that in fact the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused-respondent. Therefore, the judgment dated 21.06.2008 deserves to be interfered with. 10. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned judgment dated 21.06.2008, as well as the judgment dated 24.11.2006 passed by the learned Magistrate. 11. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment dated 21.06.2008 clearly reveals that the learned Judge has noticed the fact that Mangilal (P.W.1) did not reveal the name of the driver of the offending vehicle either in the FIR, or in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Even in his examination-in-chief, he did not reveal the name of the accused-respondent. It is only in his cross-examination that for the first time, he reveals the name of the accused-respondent. 12. The learned Judge has also noticed the fact that Jamna Lal (P.W.2) has turned hostile during the course of trial. Therefore, Jamna Lal (P.W.2) does not reveal the name of the driver of the offending vehicle. 13. It is true that Smt. Sunita (P.W.7) has claimed that accused-respondent was driving the jeep rashly and negligently. But, the accused respondent was a total stranger to her. Yet she has identified the accused in the Court. Therefore, Jamna Lal (P.W.2) does not reveal the name of the driver of the offending vehicle. 13. It is true that Smt. Sunita (P.W.7) has claimed that accused-respondent was driving the jeep rashly and negligently. But, the accused respondent was a total stranger to her. Yet she has identified the accused in the Court. This is, indeed, rather surprising as she had no acquittance with the accused respondent prior to the alleged accident. Therefore, the basis on which she has been able to identify in the court, as the accusedrespondent is the driver of the offending vehicle is rather unclear. Even if she has identified the accused-respondent for the first time in the court, such an identification is rather weak piece of evidence. Obviously conviction cannot be based on such weak piece of evidence. 14. Since the identity of the accused-respondent as the driver of the offending vehicle has not been established, the learned Judge was certainly justified in giving the accused-respondent the benefit of doubt, and in quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 24.11.2006. Moreover, since the learned Judge has given cogent reasons for acquitting the accused-respondent, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. 15. This criminal leave to appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. *******