AIR 1968 SUPREME COURT 829 ::1968 AllCriR 427 ::1968 MadLJ(Cri) 556 ::1968 ACJ 51 ::1968 2 AndhLT 60 ::1968 Mah LJ 413 ::1968 MPLJ 361 ::1968 2 SCR 515 ::1968 2 SCJ 364 ::1968 70 Bom LR 536 ::1968 2 SCWR 66 ::1968 SCD 581

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Bombay)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. M. Sikri, J. M. Shelat, K. S. Hegde , JJJ

(A) Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939) , S.95, S.89— Conviction of person who is neither owner of jeep nor in charge of jeep - Conviction cannot be sustained. (Para 5) (B) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.201— What prosecution has to prove. To establish the charge under Sec. 201, the prosecution must first prove that an offence had been committed-not merely a suspicion that it might had been committed - and that the accused knowing or having reason to believe that such an offence had been committed, and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, had caused the evidence thereof to disappear. The proof of the commission of an offence is an essential requisite for bringing home the offence under S. 201 IPC. (C) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.304A— Applicability - Direct nexus between death of person and rash and negligent act of accused is essential - Evidence on record showing that accused had been seen driving for about six months to a year and that he had driven jeep to various places a day previous to occurrence -Accused having only a learner's licence - Held on basis of facts found accused could not have been held guilty under S. 304-A -There was no presumption in law that a perso....