JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - Present revision petition has been filed by Baljeet Singh alias Manjeet – petitioner against judgment dated 08.05.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide which judgment of conviction dated 29.04.2011 and order of sentence dated 30.04.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, has been upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Jeet Ram, father of the complainant, died in road accident on 29.04.2006 at about 7 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. At the time of accident, complainant along with his father Jeet Ram had come to the market on a bicycle to purchase some articles. After alighting from the bicycle, the complainant Ram Karan started taking tea at the shop of one Sonu Saini and his father had gone towards the market. When Jeet Ram, father of the complainant was crossing the road, in the meanwhile, a truck being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner came from the Gohana side and struck against the bicycle. As a result of it, father of the complainant fell down on the road and was run over by the truck. As a result of injuries sustained by Jeet Ram, he succumbed to the injuries at the spot. After covering some distance, the petitioner (driver) stopped the truck bearing registration No. HR-46C/2034 and and on enquiry, the truck driver told his name as Baljeet Singh @ Manjeet son of Brij Bhan, resident of Bobua, District Hisar. When the complainant was taking care of the dead body of his father, the petitioner taking advantage of the situation, fled away from the place of occurrence. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, an FIR was registered and during the course of the investigation, site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and photographs were taken. The accused-petitioner was arrested. Truck and cycle were taken into the police possession. Thereafter, the truck was got mechanically examined and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused-petitioner was arrested. Truck and cycle were taken into the police possession. Thereafter, the truck was got mechanically examined and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Post mortem examination on the dead body of Jeet Ram was also got conducted and after completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Copies of the documents were supplied to the accusedpetitioner. The accused-petitioner did not plead guilty, so the charges under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC were framed. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined PW1 Ram Niwas ASI, PW2 Ram Karan, complainant, Pw3 Ram Mehar, PW4 Sultan, PW5 Hawa Singh ASI, PW6 Head Constable Surender Singh, PW7 Dr. J.K.Bhalla and PW8 SI Raghbir Singh. However, some of the formal witnesses were given up being unnecessary. Thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was closed. 3. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied all the incriminating facts and circumstances, which had appeared against him and he also pleaded his false implication and innocence in the present case. 4. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and after evaluating and appraising of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court held that the accused-petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment as indicated above vide order of sentence dated 30.04.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. Vide judgment dated 08.05.2012, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has not been apprehended at the spot. Later on, no identification parade was got conducted by the Investigating Officer for identification of the accused from the complainant and other witnesses. 7. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is categorical evidence on record that after covering some distance, the driver of the truck had stopped the truck in question and on enquiry, the driver had revealed his name as Baljeet Singh @ Manjeet son of Brij Bhan, resident of Bobua, District Hisar. He had slipped away when the complainant was taking care of the dead body of his father. He had slipped away when the complainant was taking care of the dead body of his father. There is categorical evidence that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. In view of the evidence that the petitioner-accused had come to the complainant after stopping the truck, the complainant has seen him. There was no question for further identification. The accused has been identified in the Court. It cannot be said to be a weak type of evidence. In view of the categorical evidence that after the accident, the accused had remained at the spot and disclosed his name also and the complainant had opportunity to interact with the accused, reliance was rightly placed on the identification made by the complainant in the Court for the first time. Identification of accused for the first time in Court cannot be a ground to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, specifically with regard to the fact that the complainant, as well as, his deceased father were going on single bicycle, but in the evidence before the Court, it has come on record that they were on two different bi-cycles. According to the learned counsel, this is a major inconsistency. 9. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This cannot be treated as a major infirmity in the case nor it goes to the root of the case. Even otherwise, this inconsistency is not material on record. In the fact there is categorical evidence that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. 10. A prayer was made that the petitioner should be given the benefit of probation being the first offender. The prayer of the petitioner is rejected in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (sic) 1980 Supreme Court, 84. The Apex Court observed as under:- “It may be added here that in our jurisprudence, the victims of the crime do not attract attention of the law. The prayer of the petitioner is rejected in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (sic) 1980 Supreme Court, 84. The Apex Court observed as under:- “It may be added here that in our jurisprudence, the victims of the crime do not attract attention of the law. The court cannot ignore the interest of the victim while dealing in such cases which is a case in which death of a lady has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by the appellant, who after the accident fled the spot little caring for the injured deceased. Had he shown some compassion and care for the injured, perhaps her life could be saved by taking her to the hospital for medical aid without any loss of time. Not only this even the driving licence produced by him is proved to be faked in inasmuch as it bears the seal of the Licensing Authority Hoshiarpur showing that it was issued at Hoshiarpur but the evidence of PW 8 Surjan Singh Clerk D.T.O. Office, Hoshiarpur shows that the licence taken into possession from the accused was not issued by their office, thereby goving to show that the accused had kept with him a faked licence and instead of this the police has not cared to challan him for fabricating a false document i.e. the driving licence which shows that he was driving the vehicle without getting the licence and in these circumstances he does not deserve the sympathy of the Court. The case Nachhattar Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1986(1) RCR (Crl.) 489 (P&H): 1986(1) CLR 391 relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is distinguished from this case inasmuch as the accused had procured a faked driving licence and ran away from the spot little caring for the injured who could survive but for timely medical aid as discussed above. Moreover in that case, the appellant had been facing trial for about five years. Therefore, in my opinion there is no circumstance which may be taken into consideration for releasing him on probation. I, therefore, find that the appellant was rightly convicted. Moreover in that case, the appellant had been facing trial for about five years. Therefore, in my opinion there is no circumstance which may be taken into consideration for releasing him on probation. I, therefore, find that the appellant was rightly convicted. Rather a lenient view has been taken in his sentence and accordingly I dismiss the appeal keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (supra).” 11. In view of this, the above said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Firstly, after the accident, the petitioner ran away from the spot giving little care and consultation to the complainant. Secondly, the deceased was on a cycle which was hit by the offending vehicle. The truck only stopped at some distance, this reflects the petitioner’s negligency due to which innocent person on cycle had died in a road accident. Hence, the petitioner cannot be granted benefit of probation. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or infirmity which may result into miscarriage of justice in the present case. 13. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------