Sankaran Nair, J. - (1.)Petitioner was concurrently found guilty of offences punishable under Sa. 279, 337, 304 (A) IPC and 89 (a & b) read with S. 118-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Prosecution case is that petitioner drove motor car KLH 5511 in a rash/negligent manner, as a result of which it hit four children, killing one of them PW5 2 &, 3 were given up and PW 13 turned hostile, leaving only PW5 1 & 4 to speak of the occurrence. According to PW 1, he did not Tnotice the driver of the vehicle. In his cross-examination, however, he said that petitioner was driving the vehicle and also that he saw petitioner for the first time in Court.
(2.)PW 4 in his chief-examination submitted that petitioner was the driver of the car. Then be said that he did not see the petitioner. He also stated that he knew that petitioner was the driver of the car on the previous occasion, when he attended the Court. Such was the evidence. Learned counsel submitted that there is no legal evidence for connecting the accused with the offence.
(3.)The evidence is so shabby and vague, that identity of accused cannot be found on such. Moral conviction can be no proof for legal evidence. However gruesome a crime be, guilt can be found only on proof according to law. An important ingredient of an offence of this kind is the identity of the accused. Evidence should be available from the trip sheet of the vehicle, from the owner of the vehicle, if the owner himself is not the driver, and from several other circumstances. It does not take uncommon skill to unearth such material. No attempt was made in this direction. Investigating agency made an apology of its responsibilities. In the absence of lega and acceptable evidence, the only course open is to set aside the conviction.