Penal Code, 1860–Secs. 304A & 279–Conviction–Sustainability–PW 3, 4 & 5 did not support the case of prosecution–Driver was not known for PW 2 and identification parade was not conducted during the investigation–Owner of the vehicle replied in the notice u/s. 88, M.V. Act that he entrusted the vehicle to the appellant but he was not examined by the prosecution–Discrepancy and material improvements in the testimony of PW 2–No evidence to show that the vehicle was driven rashly or negligently–High speed itself may not in each case be sufficient to hold that a driver is rash or negligent–
Conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of solitary eye witness PW 2–Findings of conviction are liable to be quashed and set aside.
