- (1.) VIRENDRA Saran, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Coun sel for the State.
(2.) RAMJEET has filed this revision against the Judgment and order dated 20-4-1983 of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1982 against the Judgment and order dated 30-8-1982 of the Hlrd Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Criminal Case No. 617 of 1979 convicting and sentencing the applicant under Section 304-A I. P. C. to one year's R. I. and under Section 279 I. P. C. for three month's R. I. According to the case of the prosecution,' on 5-4-1979 at about 9 A. M. deceased Subhash was knocked down by a speeding bus. It is alleged that Subhash was looking after certain cattle which were going on the main road. The number of bus is mentioned in the F. I. R. as USL 9451 and the name of the applicant is mentioned in the F. I. R. It is not mentioned in the F. I. R. as to how the name of the applicant was known at the spot. However, in evidence it has come that one Yadu Nath, who had witnessed the incident, had disclosed the name of the applicant. At the trial, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of (P. W. I) Ram Khelawan and (P. W. 3) Deo Narain who have stated that it was the applicant who was driving the bus. Yadu Nath has not been examined by the prosecution. (P. W. 2) Birjoo did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. The basic question which stares at the face of the prosecutions case is as to how Ram Kehlawan and Deo Narain could name the applicant at the trial. These witnesses have not given any satisfactory explanation for knowing his name since before the incident and the only explanation offered by them is that the accused was often seen plying his bus on the route. No test-identification was held in the present case which could lend countenance to the fact that it was the applicant who was driving the bus. Learned Sessions Judge has observed that it could not be accepted that anybody else was driving the vehicle at that time. It is not clear on what basis this observation has been made by the Learned Judge. It is for the prosecution to establish that the bus was being driven by the applicant. The evidence in the case falls short of this.
(3.) IN the result, this revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the applicant are set-aside. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Revision allowed. .;