JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. 1. Instant revision has been filed questioning judgment of affirmation passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer in Cr. Appeal No. 23/1997 passed on 17th December 1997. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has affirmed judgment of the Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Barmer passed in Cr. Case No. 505/1989 on 24th April 1997 convicting the petitioner under sections 279, 304A IPC and under section 154/112 coupled with section 167/112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The sentence passed by the trial court is as under:- Under section 279 IPC 3 months S.I. & fine of Rs. 500/- Under section 304A IPC One year's S.I. & fine of Rs. 1000/- Under sections 154/112 and 167/112 of MV Act Fine of Rs. 500/- 2. in nutshell, matter relates to an accidental death occurred or 28th January 1989 under Police Station Gudarnalani, District-Barmer Contents of the FIR Ex.1 as have been submitted are being extracted as under:- ^^vtZ ,d ,pŒlhŒ fd'kuyky uaŒ 68 batkpZ iqfyl pkSdh xka/ko dh gS fd vkt 'kke dks djhc 4 cts eSa o ihŒlhŒ Hksjkjke uaŒ 532 nksuksa cl LVS.M xka/ko ij xLr djus ds fy;s x;s ge pkSjkgs ij xLr dj jgs Fks djhc 'kke 5%30 cts ,d tksaxk xkM+h ftldk uaŒ vkŒtsŒ,uŒ 2023 tks /kksjheUuk dh rjQ ls rst jrkj o ykijokgh iwoZd pyrh gqbZ cl LVs.M xka/ko pkSjkgs ij igqaph ml oDr ,d vkneh ds pkSgjk;k ikj djrs oDr VDdj ekjh xkM+h VDdj ml vkneh ds nkfguk iSj ds VDdj ekjh VDdj yxus ls vkneh xkM+h ds vkxs 8 o 10 dne tkdj fxjk Vkax VwV xbZ o flj ij Hkh dkQh pksV yxus ls [kwu vk x;k [kwu Hkh ekSds ij fxjk gqvk ekStwn gSA xkM+h dkQh nwj tkdj MªkbZoj us jksd nh MªkbZoj Hkh[kkjke uked gS VDdj yxus okys dk uke exk Hkhy Mwaxjh dk fuoklh gksuk ekywe gqvk ?kk;y exkjke dks mlh oDr lQk[kkuk lkapksj mlh xkM+h ds [kyklh izHkqjke ds lkFk bykt gsrq Hkst fn;k o HkrhZ djkus ds fy;s ,lŒ,pŒvksŒ lkapksj dks tfj;s ok;jySl ds lwfpr dj fn;k o bl ?kVuk ckcr vkidks Hkh lwpuk ok;jysl }kjk dh xbZA vr% dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djkosA** 3. This First Information Report has been lodged by complainant Police Constable Kishan Lal on 28th January 1989 at about 6:30 PM and this information itself reveals that the complainant has seen the alleged accident. This First Information Report has been lodged by complainant Police Constable Kishan Lal on 28th January 1989 at about 6:30 PM and this information itself reveals that the complainant has seen the alleged accident. As per this First Information Report Bhika Ram Nayak has been told to be the driver of Jonga Jeep, involved in the accident and number of the vehicle has been shown to be RJN 2023. 4. Complainant Kishan Lal, who is a Police cop and a promoted ASI, has narrated the description of the vehicle as well as driver of the vehicle in a very awkward otherwise way in his statement as PW2 Kishan Lal has narrated:- ^^,d tksaxk xkM+h vkjŒtsŒ,uŒ 2030 rst jrkj o ykijokgh ls vkbZ o exkjke dks lM+d dzksl djrs gq, dks VDdj ekjh ftlls mldh Vkax VwV xbZ 'kjhj ds pksVsa vkbZA MªkbZoj dk uke ml Hkh[kkjke crk;kA exkjke dks mlh tksaxk thi esa ys tkdj lkapksj vLirky esa HkrhZ djk;kA ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ iqfyl Fkkuk xqM+kekykuh dks nh tks bZ,Dl ih&1] ,&ch esjs nLr[kr gS gkykr ekSdk bZ,Dl ih&2 gSaA ,&ch esjs nLr[kr gSaA** Under his cross-examination, this witness has given a suspected version of the identity of driver and has narrated:- ^^ftl xkM+h ds ,DlhMsUV gqvk ml xkM+h ds MªkbZoj dks eSa igys ls ugha tkurk FkkA eq>s esjs flikgh us MªkbZoj ds nks uke Hkh[kkjke o izHkqjke crk;s FksA eSaus MªkbZoj dks ekSds ij ugha ns[kk FkkA** He has further uttered strange version:- ^^;g lgh gS fd ml le; vxj xkM+h izHkwjke pyk jgk gks rks eq>s irk ugha---- esjs flikgh us eq>s crk;k fd Hkh[kkjke xkM+h pyk jgk Fkk---- eSaus Hkh[kkjke dks oDr nq?kZVuk xkM+h pykrs ugha ns[kkA** 5. On an interrogatory, this witness has replied that he was told by Constable No. 532 Bhera Ram that Bhika Ram was driving the vehicle. He has also narrated that who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, he did not see. Appreciation and analysis of the evidence of this witness, who is a complainant and author of Ex.1 FIR, is sufficient to conclude that the factual aspect of involvement of vehicle number RJN 2023 and its driver being Bhika Ram, becomes suspicious since complainant Kishan Lal has named registration number of the vehicle otherwise than the FIR and it has been told to be RJN 2030. 6. 6. So factum of Bhika Ram being the driver of the involved vehicle, which is a recital in Ex.1, gets falsified because Kishan Lal has specifically asserted that he did not witness as to who was plying the vehicle. He has also narrated that a Constable apprised him regarding this fact. He has also uttered in a confusing statement that his Constable has narrated him, two names of driver-as Bhika Ram and Prabhu Ram. In view of this appreciation, the veracity of exhibit No. 1 FIR and identity of involved vehicle as well as the driver becomes dubious. 7. PW1 Bhera Ram, who is also a Police cop and companion/colleague of complainant PW2 Kishan Lal, has also been examined as PW1 and evaluation of evidence of this witness reflects that this cop is also not determined with respect to number of the vehicle involved since Bhera Ram has stated:- ^^tksaxk xkM+h ua0 vkjŒtsŒlhŒ 2023 ,dne rst jrkj ls vk;h pkSjkgs ij ,d vkneh [kM+k Fkk ftldh nkfguh rjQ vkdj VDdj ekjh ftlls exkjke fxj x;k mlds iSj esa pksVsa vkbZ bldh ckn esa lkapksj vLirky esa e`R;q gks x;hA** He has further stated that:- ^^tksaxk dk MªkbZoj izHkqjke FkkA ftlus exkjke ds VDdj ekjh FkhA** Though on query, he has narrated otherwise on his cross-examination and this witness has stated that he has seen the accident from hundred 'panwda' i.e. steps. He has further stated:- ^^eqdnek fd'kuyky us ntZ djok;k Fkk-------- e`rd exkjke Hkhy tks fd'kuyky e`rd exkjke dk fj'rsnkj FkkA eSa ml oDr fd'kuyky ,pŒlhŒ dk v/khuLFk deZpkjh FkkA** At the end of his statement, he has further repeated number of the vehicle involved, which is obviously not correct since he has stated:- ^^xkM+h ds uEcj eSaus utnhd vkdj ns[ks Fks vkSj oks xkM+h vkjŒtsŒlhŒ 2023 FkhA ,DlhMsUV vkjŒtsŒlhŒ 2023 us gh fd;k FkkA** 8. Analysis of the above evidence given by this eye-witness casts a shadow of doubt on the identity of vehicle involved as well as on the identity of the driver. This witness has uttered a new fact by saying that the deceased was a relative of complainant Kishan Lal and Bhera Ram PW1 was working under subordination of said Kishan Lal, hence, instinct of indifference and independence become enterprising and doubtful with respect to veracity of the statement of this witness. 9. PW3 Sata Ram, PW4 Kesar Singh. This witness has uttered a new fact by saying that the deceased was a relative of complainant Kishan Lal and Bhera Ram PW1 was working under subordination of said Kishan Lal, hence, instinct of indifference and independence become enterprising and doubtful with respect to veracity of the statement of this witness. 9. PW3 Sata Ram, PW4 Kesar Singh. PW5 Sawai and PW7 Prabhu Ram have become hostile and they have not support the version of the prosecution. 10. Prabhu Ram (PW7), who by his version has stated to be the actual driver of said vehicle with Bhika Ram, to whom PW1 Bhera Ram has once stated to be a driver of the Jonga jeep, has asserted that he was actual driver of the said vehicle when it met with the accident. To quote his verbatum, he has stated:- eSa eqyfte Hkh[kkjke dh tksaxk xkM+h ls N% lkr o"kZ igys pykrk Fkk] N% lkr o"kZ igys dh ckr gS] ml jkst eSa vkSj nks&pkj tus /kksjheUu ls xka/ko tk jgs Fks] xkM+h eSa pyk jgk Fkk] xka/ko 'kke dks 6&7 cts 'kke dks igqapsA ml jkst dksbZ ,DlhMsUV eSaus ugha ns[kkA and this witness has been declared to be hostile. 11. PW6 Khushal Chand is a witness conducting mechanical examination and Ex. 10 mechanical report has been prepared by him. Exhibit, 10 mechanical report is equally vital since para 2 of its finding says:- ^^jkbV lkbZM ihNs dk Oghy lyS.Mj yhd gksus ls QqV czSd [kjkc gSA** 12. This finding is enough to indicate that said vehicle was not mechanically fit to be plied because the brake system was not working. PW8 Mohan Lal is Doctor conducting postmortem and PW9 Khiraj Ram is the Investigation Officer. While recording statement of accused under section 313 CrPC learned trial court has also committed error in putting forth correct number of vehicle involved since in interrogatory, description of the vehicle is tksaxk xkM+h vkjŒtsŒlhŒ 2023 . Even in subsequent interrogatory this vehicle has been shown as RJN 2032. 13. The upshot of the aforesaid cumulative evaluation of the material and evidence available on record of the trial court does dearly indicate that the identity of the vehicle and identity of the driver were not at all ascertained and it remained dubious throughout, neither the trial court nor the first appellate court has appreciated these aspects nor they have evaluated all these deficiencies on merit. 14. The object of conferring the power of revision in the High Court is to confer power upon superior criminal Courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harshness of treatment, which has resulted on the one hand miscarriage of justice and on the other hand caused undeserved hardship to individuals. The controlling power of the High Court is discretionary and must be exercised in the interest of justice with regard to all facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of the Supreme Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction. But if the Court arrives at a finding without properly considering the evidence on record and without applying the principles of law correctly, it can never be called a finding of fact. Such finding of fact, even if concurrent, can never be binding on the revisional court. But concurrent finding of Courts below giving cogent and convincing reasons holding the accused guilty, cannot be interfered in revision, however, in appropriate cases the High Court is entitled to look into the evidence. 15. In a concurrent finding of conviction, the power of revision must be exercised sparingly, under compelling reasons, where non-interference may result in miscarriage of justice and where non appreciation of evidence or incorrect appreciation of the material is there, then interference becomes imperative. It is well settled principle of law in matters of road accidents that conviction may not be awarded to those drivers whose identity is not certain while the mishap occurred. Therefore, considering the instant revision on the basis of aforesaid deliberations and analysis of the evidence, this Court is of the view that both the learned courts below committed grave mistake by convicting the accused-petitioner, for the reason dealt above of non-identity of driver and non-identity of vehicle involved, hence, the revision deserves to be allowed. Therefore, considering the instant revision on the basis of aforesaid deliberations and analysis of the evidence, this Court is of the view that both the learned courts below committed grave mistake by convicting the accused-petitioner, for the reason dealt above of non-identity of driver and non-identity of vehicle involved, hence, the revision deserves to be allowed. Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court vide order dated 24th July 1997 and affirmed by the first appellate court vide judgment dated 17th December 1997 are hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted from charges under sections 279, 304A IPC and section 154/112 coupled with section 167/112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner Bhika Ram is on bail, he need not to surrender.