SULEMAN REHIMAN MULANI & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 515 · Decided: 01-12-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
I! 
G 
H 
SULEMAN REHIMAN MULANI & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
December 1, 1967 
{S. M. SllCRI, J. M. SHELAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.) 
Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860) ss. 201 and 304-A-Vebic/e 
driv.en b)' learner without trainer-No evidence that death due to neali· 
gence 9/ driver-Conviction if proper--Conviction under s. 304·A 
set 
aride, if can be maintained under s. 201.-Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), 
ss. 5 and 89-Neither 011.'ner, nor in-charge, if can b~ convicted. 
The first appellant holding only a learner's licenoe was driving a jeep . 
without a trainer by his side and injured a person. The first appellant and 
his companion in the journey-the second appellant put the injured in the 
jeep for getting medical aid, bu"t the injured died on the way. They cre-
mated the dead body. The first appellant was convicted under s. 304-A 
I.P.C. and ss. 3, 89 and 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the second 
appellant under s. 201 I.P.C., and ss. 5 and 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 
HELD: There was-no. evidenee to show that the first appellant was 
responsible for the incident so his conviction under s. 304-A could not be 
sustained. [517 H] 
The requirements of s. 304-A I.P.C. am that the death of any person 
must have been caused by the accused by <!oing any rash or negligent act. 
In other words, th"e must be proof that the rash or negligent act of the 
acCused was the proximate cause of the death. There must be direct nexus 
between the death of a person and the rash or negligent act of the accused. 
There is no presumption in Jaw that a person who possesses only a 
learner's licence or possesses no licence at all does not know driving. For 
various reason·s, not excluding sheer indifference, he might not have taken 
a· regula_r licence. The prosecution evidence that first appellant bad driven 
the jeep to various places on the· day previous to the occurrence was. a 
proof of the fact that he knew driving, [519 B-C; 520 B-C] 
The question whether first appellant was propcient in driving a jeep 
or not does not conclude the issue. His proficiency in driving might furnish 
a defence. which a learner could not have, but the absence of proficiency 
did not make him guilty, [521 D-E] 
As the conviction of the first appellant under s. 304-A I.P.C. could 
not be sustained, the conviction of second appellant under s. 201 1.P.C. 
had to.be set aside. 
Because to establish the charge under s. 201. the 
prosecuticin mtist first prove that_ an offence had 
been 
committed-not 
merely a suspicion that it might have been committed-and that the accus-
ed knowing or having reason to believe that such. an offence had been 
committed, and with the. intent i::o screen the offender from legal punish-
ment, had caused the evidence thereof to disappear. 
The proof of the 
commission of an offence i's an essential requisite for bringing home the 
offence under s. 201 I.P.C. [517 D-G; .521 F-Gl 
Palvinder Kaur v. State of Pu~ji;b, [1953] S.C.R. 94, and Kurban 
Hussein Moharnmedali Rangwalla v. State of Maharashtra [1965] 2 S.CR. 
622, followed. 
Emperor v. Omkar RampratGp, 4 B.L.R. 679, approved. 
515 
516 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1968) 2 S.C.R. 
Jugga11khan v. S1a1e of Madhya 
PrTU/esll, 
[1965) S.C.R. 14 distin-
A 
i!lished. 
The second appellant could not be convicted either under s. 5 ·or s. 
89 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 
In convicting him under those provisions, 
the fact that he was not the owner of the jeep had been overlooked. Nor 
was there any proof that he was in charge of the jeep. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nl'. 
B 
50 of l 965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
February 15, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revi-
>ion Application !\o. 917 of 1964. 
A. S. R. Chari, 0. P. Malhotra, V. N. Ganpu/e, P. C. Bhartari, 
and 0. C. Mathur, for the appellants. 
M. S. K. Sastri and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J. 
In this appeal by special leave against the judg-
ment of the High Court of Bombay in criminal revision applica-
tion No. 917 /64, the question that arises for decision is whether 
on the facts found by the courts below, the appellants were pro-
perly held to be guilty of all or any of the offences for which they 
have been convicted. 
In the· trial court there were as many as nine accused. 
All 
the accused excepting accused Nos. I and 2 who arc appellants l 
and 2 respectively in this Court,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.