ORDER : Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. 1. The petitioner has assailed judgment dated 20.11.2002 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Kiashangarhbas (Alwar) in regular Criminal Appeal No. 8/1999 preferred by the petitioner whereby he partly allowed the appeal by quashing and set aside the sentence for offence u/s 279 IPC and by sustaining conviction and sentence for offence u/s 304-A IPC passed on 4.6.1999 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar in regular Criminal Case No. 59/1992. Learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as follows:- U/s 279 IPC One month's Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment thereof, to further undergo one month's Simple Imprisonment. U/s 304A IPC Six months' Simple Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment thereof to further undergo two months' Simple Imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 17.2.1992 Kanhaiya Lal (PW-3) submitted a written report (Ex.P-2) before SHO, Police Station Kishangarhbas stating that on 6.2.1992, his mother Gindo Devi was returning from Kishangarhbas to Bambora on foot along with some ladies. Driver of a jeep mowed down her and she succumbed to the injury at General Hospital, Alwar. Police got conducted postmortem and drew other proceedings. So far, he tried to find out the jeep responsible for accident. Now he has come to know that jeep No. RJ-02-1026 had mowed down his mother and Prakash Chand was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Witness of the accident is Manohar Lal. On this information, formal FIR No. 19/1992 was registered at Police Station Kishangarhbas. After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner. Learned trial court read over the substance of accusations to the petitioner for offence u/s 279 and 304A IPC. On claiming trial by him, prosecution examined six witnesses and exhibited six documents. Petitioner was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He termed the evidence adduced by prosecution as wrong and expressed his ignorance. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. After hearing arguments, learned trial court vide judgment dated 4.6.1999 convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as stated hereinabove. On appeal preferred against this judgment, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Kishangarhbas (Alwar) partly allowed the appeal as stated herein above. 3. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. After hearing arguments, learned trial court vide judgment dated 4.6.1999 convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as stated hereinabove. On appeal preferred against this judgment, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Kishangarhbas (Alwar) partly allowed the appeal as stated herein above. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and gone through all the material available on record. 4. A perusal of inquest report (Ex.P-4) prepared by police u/s 174 Cr.P.C. reveals that mother of complainant Kanhaiya Lal (PW-3) - Gindo Bai died on 6.2.1992 due to accident. A postmortem report is available on record but it has not been exhibited. Nevertheless, on the basis of inquest report (Ex.P-4), happening of accident and death of Gindo Bai, mother of the complainant, is established. 5. Kanhaiya Lal (PW-3) has deposed before learned trial court that he was also coming back from Kishangarhbas along with his mother. He has deposed as an eye witness that Gindo was mowed down by jeep which was being driven by Prakash Chand, the petitioner who was known to him prior to the incident. It is strange and quite unnatural that had the witness been an eye witness, why he did not disclose this fact in the written report (Ex.P-2) lodged by him after 11 days of the incident. Further, as per written report (Ex.P-2), Kanhaiya Lal could not report the matter to police because he remained busy in finding out the jeep involved in the accident whereas during trial, he stated that he himself was eye witness of the incident and he had identified the driver because he was known to him prior to the incident. The other witness - Smt. Bimla (PW-2) examined as eye witness, deposed that he was coming back to village along with deceased Gindo. At about 5 O'clock in the evening, a car with high speed came from Kishangarhbas and mowed down Gindo. The car was being driven by Prakash who is known to her. In cross examination, she further states that she knows the house of Prakash. They are three brother and sister but she further states that she cannot identify Prakash today. The deposition made by Bimla (PW-2) is also quite strange and unnatural. 6. The car was being driven by Prakash who is known to her. In cross examination, she further states that she knows the house of Prakash. They are three brother and sister but she further states that she cannot identify Prakash today. The deposition made by Bimla (PW-2) is also quite strange and unnatural. 6. Learned appellate court has returned the finding that involvement of Jeep RJ-02-1026 in the incident and Prakash as driver of the jeep is established from the testimony rendered by Suresh Sharma (PW-4). Suresh Sharma has deposed that jeep RJ-02-1026 was owned by him and on this jeep, Prakash was driver on 6.2.1992. This witness has nowhere admitted that any accident was occurred by this jeep or at the time of accident Prakash was driving the same. There is nothing else on record to establish connection of jeep RJ-02-1026 and its driver Prakash with the fateful incident. The finding of learned appellate court is perverse and perfunctory. The conviction upheld by learned appellate court is not sustainable at all. 7. In the result, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The judgment dated 4.6.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar about conviction and sentence for offence u/s 304A, sustained by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Kishangarhbas (Alwar), is hereby quashed and set aside.