Hari Narayan Vs. the State of Rajasthan

penal code - 304a--rash & negligent driving--facts not bringing about that accused was driving vehicle--extra judicial confession is weak type of evidence--held, no evidence to act upon.;the facts stated by the posecution that the prosecution itself clearly point out that the accused, at any rate, could not have been the driver of the vehicle at her relevant point of time although those facts directly and indirectly suggest that in all probability, stephen must have been driving the vehicle at the relevant time. eextra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence unless that evidence finds corroboration, it is dangerous to act upon such evidence. this is a case where there is no evidence at all and i am constrained to observe that the courts below have acted upon such evidence to base conviction.; revision allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - the..........time, was driving the vehicle and that the accident happened on the way to singhana and that he did not drive the vehicle.4. the prosecution case was sought to be established only on the evidence of stephen. according to stephen, he went to the picture house leaving the vehicle in charge of the accused and some time later the accused met him, when he was in the picture-house and confessed before him that while driving the vehicle he met with an accident. this evidence of stephen has been accepted by the courts below. if the courts below had applied their minds properly to the circumstances available in the case and had subjected he evidence of stephen to proper judicial test, they would not have come to the conclusion that they have arrived at. the facts stated by the prosecution itself clearly point of the accused, at any rate, could not have been the driver of the vehicle at the relevant point of time although those facts directly and indirectly suggest that in all probability, stephen must have been driving the vehicle at the relevant time. extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence unless that evidence finds corroboration, it is dangerous to act upon such evidence. this is a case where there is no evidence at all and i am constrained to observe that the courts below have acted upon such evidence to base conviction.5. i, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused and acquit him.