JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant revision petition, petitioner has assailed judgment dated 05.03.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Cr. Appeal No. 86-S/10 of 2009, affirming judgment and sentence order dated 21.08.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (1), Shimla in Case No. 38/2 of 2005, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Sr.No. Under Section Imprisonment Fine amount In default 1. 279 IPC S.I. for six months Rs.1000/- S.I. for one month 2. 337 IPC S.I. for six months Rs.5000/- S.I. for one month 3. 304A IPC S.I. for one year Rs.5000/- S.I. for two months. Out of fine amount, a sum of Rs.7,000/- has been ordered to be paid as compensation to legal representatives of deceased Vidya and Rs.2,000/- each as compensation to injured Shobha and Asha. 2. The petitioner was charged for commission of offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the allegations that on 21.03.2005 while driving Ambassador car bearing registration No. HP-03-4045 in a rash and negligent manner, the petitioner caused accident resulting in death of Smt. Vidya and injuries to Ms. Shobha and Ms. Asha. 3. The prosecution examined total 16 witnesses to prove its case and also placed reliance on various documents. PW-1 Asha Verma, PW-2 Shobha Thakur, PW- 14 Ashwani Kumar, PW-15 Puneet Kumar and PW-16 Tara Chand were examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence. In fact, PW-1 and PW-2 both were the victims. PW-7 was the Officer of Central Bank of India to whom the offending vehicle belonged. PW-3 H.C. Tulsi Dass, PW-11 H.C. Gian Chand and PW-12 HC Hira Lal were the police witnesses, out of whom, PW-12 HC Hira Lal was the Investigating Officer. PW-4 Sant Ram had stood surety for the petitioner. PW-6 Dr. Sangeet Dhillon had conducted the autopsy on deceased Ms. Vidya, PW-9 Dr. Dinesh Sharma had conducted the medical examination of Shobha Thakur and had issued MLC. PW-8 Inder Mohan was a press photographer and had snapped some photographs of the spot. 4. Petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Petitioner examined DW-1 Hari Ram in defence. 5. On appraisal of the records, both the Courts have convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as noticed above, hence the present revision petition. 6. PW-8 Inder Mohan was a press photographer and had snapped some photographs of the spot. 4. Petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Petitioner examined DW-1 Hari Ram in defence. 5. On appraisal of the records, both the Courts have convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as noticed above, hence the present revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed impugned judgment on the ground that the identification of the person driving the offending vehicle was highly doubtful, keeping in view the evidence on record. He submitted that the vehicle in question belonged to Central Bank of India and the bank had employed one Sohan Lal son of Sh. Kiru Ram as driver, whereas, the petitioner was Sohan Lal son of Sh. Sukh Dass. The vehicle was being driven by Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Kiru Ram and since he was not having proper driving licence, the petitioner was falsely named as driver of the offending vehicle to avoid liability under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that there was ample evidence on record to prove that the petitioner had visited the office of Central Bank of India on 21.03.2005 for the first time, that too, at the asking of DW- 1 Hari Ram for the reason that the services of driver were required there. In this background, the petitioner came to be falsely implicated. 8. On the other hand, Sh. Narender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General has contended that the findings recorded by both the Courts are in accordance with the evidence available on record and none of such findings can be said to be illegal or perverse. There is positive evidence on record in the shape of statements of PW-2 and PW-7 which directly implicate the petitioner as perpetrator of the offence. 9. Noticeably, the defence raised by the petitioner was that he was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He has tried to take benefit of the fact that PWs 15 and 16 had refused to identify him. However, PW-2 Shobha Thakur one of the victims had categorically stated that she alongwith Vidya, Asha and Monika had alighted from a bus near St. Edward School, Shimla. All of them were standing towards the hill side. He has tried to take benefit of the fact that PWs 15 and 16 had refused to identify him. However, PW-2 Shobha Thakur one of the victims had categorically stated that she alongwith Vidya, Asha and Monika had alighted from a bus near St. Edward School, Shimla. All of them were standing towards the hill side. Ambassador car No. HP-03-4045 came from the side of Kamla Nehru Hospital in a high speed and caused the accident. Vidya expired on the spot, whereas injuries were suffered by her and Asha. As per this witness, she was pressed against the wall by the offending car. She categorically stated that the accused present in the Court was driver of the vehicle. She also mentioned that the car had struck against a parked bus and the accused present in the Court had fled from the scene. In cross-examination, PW-2 though stated that she was not knowing the petitioner previously, however, she volunteered that she had noticed the petitioner coming out of the car. 10. In addition to the statement of PW-2, the statement of PW-7 Raj Kumar reveals that he was posted as Regional Manager of Central Bank of India, Shimla during the relevant period. He deposed that vehicle No. HP-03-4045 belonged to the bank. On 21.03.2005, the petitioner was driver of the said vehicle and after dropping PW-7 in the office, had left for parking the vehicle. He was again called alongwith vehicle as this witness had to attend some meetings with the auditors and while bringing the vehicle from parked place to the office, petitioner had caused the accident. In cross-examination of PW-7, he revealed that though Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Kiru Ram was employed as driver by the bank for the last about 7-8 years, but was on leave since few days prior to accident. It was also disclosed by this witness that the petitioner was performing the duties of driver with bank since 18.03.2005. He specifically denied that Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Kiru Ram had committed the accident. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised an argument that learned trial Court had rightly disbelieved the version of PW-2 Shobha Thakur regarding identification of petitioner on the ground that the said witness might have had only a passing glimpse of the driver and without conduct of test identification parade, it was not prudent to rely upon such version. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised an argument that learned trial Court had rightly disbelieved the version of PW-2 Shobha Thakur regarding identification of petitioner on the ground that the said witness might have had only a passing glimpse of the driver and without conduct of test identification parade, it was not prudent to rely upon such version. He further stated that if the statement of PW-2 is excluded, no other person examined as prosecution witness had identified the petitioner to be the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. As regards the statement of PW-7, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he clearly was an interested witness and in order to save the bank from liability to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the name of petitioner was falsely implicated. 12. The first contention of the petitioner that learned trial Court had disbelieved the version of PW-2 Shobha Thakur will not help him for the simple reason that the judgment passed by learned trial Court has merged with the judgment passed by learned appellate Court. While deciding the appeal, the learned appellate Court had disagreed with the findings recorded by learned trial Court. Learned appellate court held that simply because PW-2 had not seen the petitioner earlier, her version cannot be rejected as it was not a case where accident had taken place at odd hours and the said witness was not in a position to see the driver. The identification of accused by a witness for the first time in Court is a substantive piece of evidence and if a witness had any particular reason to remember about the identity of accused, such evidence can be relied upon to convict the accused. Reference in this regard can be made to judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Bansi Gohar Vs State of Maharashtra and others reported in (1998) 6 SCC 609 . 13. Noticeably, the date of accident is 21.03.2005. PW-2 Shobha Thakur was examined as a witness in the Court on 15.09.2005 i.e. after a gap of about less than six months. It being so, there was nothing abnormal that PW- 2 was able to identify the accused. 13. Noticeably, the date of accident is 21.03.2005. PW-2 Shobha Thakur was examined as a witness in the Court on 15.09.2005 i.e. after a gap of about less than six months. It being so, there was nothing abnormal that PW- 2 was able to identify the accused. The fact gains importance because PW-2 had not seen petitioner just by chance, she was victim of accident and it was natural for her to have given a deeper look on the person, who had caused the accident. It was bright day light. The evidence also suggests that the door on driver side of the offending vehicle was jammed as it had struck against a bus. The driver of the offending vehicle had alighted from other side, therefore, it can easily be inferred that PW-2 had got sufficient time to see the driver getting out from the car. Thus, the findings recorded by learned appellate Court cannot be faulted with. 14. As regards the other submission of petitioner that PW-7 was interested to save his company from consequences of the accident also does not sound very convincing. PW-7 had categorically stated that Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Kiru Ram was on leave and the petitioner had started coming to the office to drive the vehicle w.e.f. 18.03.2005. Since, the petitioner was defending himself by raising a specific defence that the vehicle was being driven by Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Kiru Ram, it was for petitioner to have availed opportunity to rebut the contention of PW-7 by summoning the concerned record of the leave of Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Kiru Ram from the office of Central Bank of India, Shimla. One cannot ignore that PW-7 cannot be faulted for not having brought the leave record of Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Kiru Ram for the reason that the police had investigated the case and PW-7 was cited as a witness only to narrate the factual position regarding accident, the defence later taken by petitioner could not have been presumed in advance. Both the Courts have rightly believed the version of PW-7 to the effect that the petitioner was deputed to drive the vehicle on 21.03.2005 and the accident was caused while he was driving the same. 15. Viewed from another angle, it is not in dispute that petitioner was arrested in the case on the same day. Both the Courts have rightly believed the version of PW-7 to the effect that the petitioner was deputed to drive the vehicle on 21.03.2005 and the accident was caused while he was driving the same. 15. Viewed from another angle, it is not in dispute that petitioner was arrested in the case on the same day. It is highly improbable that a person having been falsely implicated in a case where death had occurred, would not make efforts to prove his innocence at the earliest. There is nothing on record to suggest that before taking the defence in the trial of the case by way of cross-examination of witnesses, petitioner had made any complaint to any higher authority in the Government or Central Bank of India regarding injustice being done to him. In these circumstances, the defence raised by petitioner is nothing but a concoction and after-thought. It had been proved beyond doubt that petitioner was the driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident. 16. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Such findings are borne from the evidence on record. No mechanical defect was found in the vehicle. At the site of accident, a bus was parked and passengers were alighting from it. PW-1 and PW-2 both have stated that the vehicle was being driven in high speed and hit the parked bus and passengers having alighted from it. Even PW-5 has stated that he had seen the offending vehicle driven in a high speed, which had crushed three ladies and thereafter had struck against a parked bus. The findings so recorded by learned Courts below regarding accident being result of rash and negligent driving of vehicle cannot be interfered with as the same are borne from the material on record. Even otherwise, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the findings of facts can be interfered with by this Court only if such findings are patently illegal or perverse. 17. In result, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. Judgment dated 05.03.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Cr. Appeal No. 86-S/10 of 2009, affirming judgment and sentence order dated 21.08.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (1), Shimla in Case No. 38/2 of 2005, is affirmed. 17. In result, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. Judgment dated 05.03.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Cr. Appeal No. 86-S/10 of 2009, affirming judgment and sentence order dated 21.08.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (1), Shimla in Case No. 38/2 of 2005, is affirmed. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court to receive the sentence.