JUDGMENT : S.G. SHAH, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. R. M. Agrawal for the appellant and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent – State. Perused the record. 2. The appellant is challenging his conviction by judgment and order dated 14.12.2001 by Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 271 of 1999. By such impugned judgment, the appellant has been awarded sentence of 18 months rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) with fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. of two months for the alleged offence u/s.304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has also been awarded additional three months’ R.I. with fine of Rs.200/- and in default, additional one month R.I., but with a direction to undergo all such imprisonment simultaneously. Thereby, total sentence would be 18 months’ R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-. The appellant has already deposited the fine of Rs.300/- on 14.12.2001. 3. The case of the prosecution before the sessions court is to the effect that on 12.9.1998, at about 10.30 p.m., one truck-trailer No.GJ-1U-4122 was driven in rash and negligent manner from Narol towards Cadila Railway over bridge and near Jashodanagar four roads, where there was a public meeting of District Congress Committee, such truck has dashed with the pedestrian and gathering of the public in such public meeting and thereby, injured staff persons and committed offences u/Secs.323, 325, 304 etc. of the IPC. Because of such vehicular accident, as many as three persons had died and therefore, offence was registered u/s.304 and tried by the sessions court. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that the vehicle was driven by the present appellant and therefore, sessions court has after trial, held the appellant guilty for the charges levelled against him and awarded sentence, which is referred herein above. 4. For proving guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and produced 33 documentary evidence before the sessions court. 4. For proving guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and produced 33 documentary evidence before the sessions court. However, perusal of such oral evidence makes it clear that, practically, there is no clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt to confirm that in fact, appellant was the only person, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, since there was no identification parade and presence of appellant was never proved and confirmed at the place of incident and none of the witnesses had confirmed that they have seen the appellant on steering wheel of the trailer by which three persons had died and some were injured. 5. The crux of prosecution witnesses in brief is summarised in following table:- Prosecution witness Exhibit Identification Comments PW-1 44 Injured P.S.I. Does not know the name of the driver. Did not see the driver since he has absconded. No part of the trailer was dashed with him. PW-2 45 Injured Police Constable Does not know that who was driver. There was huge gathering at the place. PW-3 46 Injured Police Constable Does not know that who was driver. There was huge gathering. PW-4 47 Injured Police Constable Does not know that who was the driver and there was huge gathering at the place. PW-5 48 Panch Witness Admits that he has signed several panchnamas as asked by the police. Did not see the driver and trailer. PW-6 50 Panch Witness Did not see that how many persons were in the trailer. Does not know about the driver of the vehicle. There was huge crowd. PW-7 52 Injured Victim Does not know that who was driving the vehicle. PW-8 53 Inspector of Motor Vehicle (IMV) – RTO Office. Opined about condition of vehicle, but not aware about the driver. PW-9 56 Doctor Perused the injury certificates and PM note, but could not confirm the presence of driver. PW-10 57 Doctor Perused the injury certificates and PM note, but could confirm the presence of driver. PW-11 58 Owner of Trailer Disclosed the name of the appellant as driver of he trailer, however, did not confirm that the appellant was driving the trailer at the time of accident. PW-10 57 Doctor Perused the injury certificates and PM note, but could confirm the presence of driver. PW-11 58 Owner of Trailer Disclosed the name of the appellant as driver of he trailer, however, did not confirm that the appellant was driving the trailer at the time of accident. PW-12 59 Investigating Officer Though he has lodged the FIR, he himself has investigated the incident and though he has narrated the history of investigation, he could not connect the appellant with the incident by cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Therefore, prima-facie it becomes clear that there is no sufficient evidence at all to prove the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence as alleged in the charge-sheet. PWs-1 to 10 are practically chance witnesses, though they are connected and affected with the incident, but in absence of their evidence to confirm the presence of appellant on driver seat of the vehicle in question at the time of accident or immediately thereafter, evidence of all of them could not prove anything against the appellant so as to convict him. It is settled legal position that conviction cannot be based upon mere presumptions, but there must be cogent and reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt to confirm conviction because by such conviction, liberty of the person is affected. 7. So far as remaining two witnesses are concerned, PW-11 Bhimjibhai Shamjibhai Patel, owner of the vehicle in question has though disclosed the name of the appellant as incharge driver of the vehicle in question, he categorically confirms that he is not aware about the driver of the vehicle at the time of incident. He categorically confirms that he is not aware about the driver of the vehicle at the time of incident or that appellant was driving the vehicle at the time of incident. On the contrary, he admits that he has not seen the appellant driving the vehicle and that appellant has surrendered before the police only because of his request, because police was pressing for identifying the driver. Therefore, based upon only evidence of this witness, conviction cannot be confirmed. 8. Whereas, there is material contradiction when the I.O. has stepped into the witness box. Therefore, based upon only evidence of this witness, conviction cannot be confirmed. 8. Whereas, there is material contradiction when the I.O. has stepped into the witness box. He admits that in fact owner of the truck is son of witness No.11 - Bhimjibhai Shamjibhai Patel and in that case, I.O. has failed to record the statement of son of Bhimjibhai Shamjibhai Patel and to collect documentary evidence regarding involvement of the appellant. In his cross-examination, in paragraph 19, I.O. has categorically admitted that son of Bhimjibhai Shamjibhai Patel (PW-11), who is owner of the truck – trailer has identified the appellant before him on the day when he was arrested, but no separate statement of such person is recorded about such identification and arrest. This is material irregularity, both in investigation and trial when person, who actually identified the appellant as driver of the vehicle, has never been examined. The I.O. has also admitted that he has never bothered to visit R.T.O. office to verify the factual details about license of the appellant. Therefore, there is no sufficient evidence at all to confirm that it was appellant only, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time so as to convict him as per impugned judgment. 9. Unfortunately, in addition to above-referred clear factual position, the Sessions Judge has while rejecting the request for extending the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act, referred and relied upon the principle of res ipsa loquitur and observed that based upon such principle, it is to be held that offence has been committed u/s.304(A) though allegation in the charge-sheet and charges are framed u/s.304 of the IPC. It is settled legal position that principle of res ipsa loquitur is to fix the civil liability for payment of compensation because the maxim simply confirms that the incident speaks for itself to confirm that there was negligence. However, for convicting a person, such presumption based upon such maxim, does not confirm that it was only the appellant, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. To that extent, the application of above maxim and reference of several judgments based upon such maxim, are irrelevant. In simple words, the conviction u/s.304(A) of the IPC based upon such maxim, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 10. To that extent, the application of above maxim and reference of several judgments based upon such maxim, are irrelevant. In simple words, the conviction u/s.304(A) of the IPC based upon such maxim, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 10. In view of above facts and circumstances, when there is no sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to confirm that it was only appellant, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, only because police personnel had died and were injured, there cannot be conviction of the appellant based upon available evidence on record i.e. in absence of identification parade, statement of the son of PW-11, who has identified the appellant and in absence of deposition of eye-witness, so also circumstantial chain to confirm that it was only appellant, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. 11. In view of above facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment certainly results into material irregularity and illegality in convicting the appellant and therefore, it is required to be reversed by extending benefit of doubt to the appellant, thus, confirming his acquittal. 12. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order in Sessions Case No.271 of 1999 whereby there is conviction of the appellant; is quashed and set-aside. He is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. Since he is on bail, his bail bond shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.