ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by judgment dated 22nd October 2009 passed by Sri Rakesh Malviya, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-Begusarai in G.R. No. 1374/1998 whereby and whereunder petitioner has been found guilty under Section 279, 337, 338, 304 (A) of the IPC and further has been directed to undergo S.I. for three months under Section 279 IPC, S.I. for three months under Section 337 IPC, S.I. for one year for an offence punishable under Sections 338 IPC and S.I. for one year under Section 304(A) of the IPC as well as also has been slapped with a fine of Rs.10,000/- out of which Rs. 5000/- was directed to be paid to the parents of deceased Mamta Kumari in terms of Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. in default thereof to undergo S.I. for two months directing the sentences to run consecutively, as well as the judgment of confirmation dated 06.03.2013 passed by Ad hoc District & Sessions Judge, IV Begusarai in Cr. Appeal No. 146/2009. 3. PW-2 had given his Fard-e-beyan on 17.06.1998 disclosing therein that while he along with his sister’s daughter, Mamta Kumari and aunti Ramrati Devi were coming to the house crossing national highway at Khajopur Chowk, one Maxi Taxi bearing Registration No. BR09M/8283 which was being rashly and negligently driven by its driver without blowing horn came from western side and after dashing Mamta Kumari and Ramrati Devi escaped towards eastern side. Mamta Kumari died at the spot while Ramrati Devi was taken to the hospital. 4. Having the case instituted thereupon against the driver of BR09M/8283, the investigation commenced and during course of investigation, petitioner was identified as driver of the vehicle and on account thereof, charge-sheet was submitted against him whereupon trial commenced and concluded in a manner leading to filing of Cr. Appeal and having its dismissal, the petitioner approached before this Court by way of instant Cr. Revision. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that neither the I.O. nor any independent witnesses have been examined in this case. Appeal and having its dismissal, the petitioner approached before this Court by way of instant Cr. Revision. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that neither the I.O. nor any independent witnesses have been examined in this case. Altogether only four witnesses have been examined out of whom PW-1 is hearsay while PWs-2 and 4 had not claimed identification of the driver and on account thereof, the reason assigned by the successive courts on that very score are against the material available on the record. There is no controversy with regard to accident wherein one Mamta Kumari had died while Ramrati Devi had sustained injuries. The death of Mamta Kumari is further strengthened by the evidence of PW-3, Dr. Vijay Kumar who had conducted postmortem but the fact remains that in absence of proper identification, the petitioner should have been given at least the benefit of doubt. 6. On the other hand learned Additional P.P. opposed the prayer and submitted that the trial court had minutely scrutinized the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution before observing the petitioner guilty. As such, the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial court having been concurred by the appellate court needs no interference. 7. While exercising the revisional power, a note of caution has been put over re-appraisal of the evidence unless and until there is manifest error in appraisal of the evidence by the successive courts. 8. From the evidence so adduced on behalf of prosecution, it is apparent that PWs-1, 2 and 4 are the witnesses on material point. PW-1 had himself disclosed that he reached at the place of occurrence after half an hour of the occurrence where he came to know that accident was met by a Maxi Taxi bearing Registration No. BR09M/8283. Therefore, his evidence on the point of identification did not satisfy. 9. Now coming to the evidence of PW-2, it is crystal clear that he is an illiterate, so reading of registration number of the vehicle which met with an accident as BR09M/8283 was not at all possible, feasible at his end and that is the reason behind that he himself disclosed in para-3 of his examination-in-chief that he is an illiterate. The persons who were present there had disclosed registration number of the vehicle. The persons who were present there had disclosed registration number of the vehicle. Surprisingly, the prosecution, during course of his examination-in-chief failed to elicit from him that he had identified the driver. As such, evidence of this witness i.e., PW-2 so far identification of petitioner is concerned became worthless. 10. Now remains the evidence of PW-4. During her examination-in-chief apart from supporting the case of the prosecution, she had claimed identification of the driver. In para-2 of her cross-examination, she had disclosed that after regaining sense, the people assembled there who had disclosed the registration number of the vehicle as well as name of the driver. She had further disclosed that accused, Indradeo Yadav is her co-villager and so she claimed identification. That means to say, she had not claimed identification of Indradeo Yadav as a driver of the concerned vehicle. 11. In the aforesaid background, even having the evidence of PW-3 which suggests death of Mamta Kumari by way of dashing by a vehicle, will not support the case of the prosecution so far complicity of the petitioner’s is concerned. 12. It is apparent from the successive judgments, that this aspect had completely been overlooked. Having the severe deficiency of the prosecution evidence on the score of identification of the petitioner, at least, petitioner is found to be entitled for benefit of doubt. Consequent thereupon, the successive judgments rendered by the learned lower courts are set aside. Petition is allowed. 13. Since petitioner is in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.