JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Darshana Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tapas Roy, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 26.02.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC VI, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.08.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Hazaribagh in Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 62 of 1999 convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279/304, 337, 338 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to various terms has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 14.06.1999 the informant was standing at her door with her son Md. Kausar in her lap when a Maruti van rashly driven came there and dashed against the informant which resulted in both the mother and child suffering injuries. It has also been alleged that her sister-in-law namely, Anisa Khatoon who had come to the door also suffered injury and one tailor namely, Salim who was passing by was also dashed by the Maruti van. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Katkamsandi P. S. Case No. 62 of 1999 was instituted in which after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, charges were framed under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of I.P.C. to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In course of trial, 3 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W. 1 – Akhtari Bano is the informant who has stated that on the date of occurrence while she was sitting near her house with a child in her lap, a Maruti van coming from Chatra dashed against herself, Anisha and one Salim. She has stated that she and her child has suffered fracture injury. This witness has identified the driver in the dock. She has also stated that the Salim has died on account of accident. She has further stated that she had not disclosed the number and colour of the vehicle. P.W. 2 – Dr. Anwar Ekram was posted at Sadar hospital, Hazaribagh on the date of occurrence and he had examined P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and Md. Kausar. He had found fracture on right finger femur bone of the child Md. Kausar which was opined to be grievous in nature. P.W. 2 – Dr. Anwar Ekram was posted at Sadar hospital, Hazaribagh on the date of occurrence and he had examined P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and Md. Kausar. He had found fracture on right finger femur bone of the child Md. Kausar which was opined to be grievous in nature. He also found lacerated wound on left ear and swelling on forehead of Anisha Khatoon which was opined to be caused by hard and blunt substance and the said injuries were simple in nature. This witness had also examined P.W. 1 and had found fracture on right femur bone as well as lacerated wounds and the injury no. 1 was found to be grievous. P.W. 3 – Anisha Khatoon is also an injured who has stated that she was dashed by a Maruti van and all the injured persons were brought to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh. She has stated that the Salim while being taken to Ranchi had died on the way. She has also stated that she could not identify the driver. She has deposed that she also did not disclose about the registration number and the colour of the vehicle. 5. The conviction of the petitioner stems from the evidence of P.W. 1 who has claimed to have identified the petitioner in the dock. P.W. 3 has failed to identify the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle. The investigating officer of the case has not been examined and the same has caused prejudice to the defence as the Investigating Officer could have thrown light with respect to identifying the petitioner as the driver of the vehicle. In fact neither the Motor Vehicle Inspector has been examined nor any report has been exhibited which would indicate that the accident had taken place without there being any mechanical failure of the vehicle. In fact the doctor who had conducted autopsy on the body of Salim was also not examined. 6. It is an admitted fact that an accident had indeed taken place on 14.06.1999 in which P.W. 1, P.W. 3, the child of P.W. 1 as well as one Md. Salim had suffered injuries and Md. Salim has ultimately succumbed to his injuries. 6. It is an admitted fact that an accident had indeed taken place on 14.06.1999 in which P.W. 1, P.W. 3, the child of P.W. 1 as well as one Md. Salim had suffered injuries and Md. Salim has ultimately succumbed to his injuries. The question which arises is whether only on the basis of purported identification made by P.W. 1 in the dock would lead to a conclusion that it was the petitioner who was the driver of the offending vehicle which led to the accident. As has been indicated above, P.W. 3 has not identified the driver. The non-examination of the Investigating Officer during the trial has further diluted the prosecution case with respect to identification of the petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. In fact P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 both have stated that they could not disclose the number of the vehicle and even the colour of the vehicle. The manner of identification in absence of any corroboration from any corner would not be safe to rely upon and therefore, the prosecution appears to suffer from paucity of evidence and the benefit of doubt should accrue to the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid fact, therefore, since the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, this application stands allowed and the judgments dated 26.02.2008 and 01.08.2007 are hereby set aside.