Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

31. At the time of arguments learned Counsel for the appellants referred to statement of respondent No.2-owner of the canter made during investigation to the Investigating Officer of the criminal case wherein respondent No.2 stated that he had employed respondent No.1 as driver on his canter and that on 15.07.2004 respondent No.1 had telephonically informed him about having caused the accident in question. However, respondent No.2 is not stated to have made such statement before the Criminal Court. Alleged admission of respondent No.2 in his unsigned statement made to the Investigating Officer during investigation of the criminal case under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., which is not of any evidentiary value, cannot be relied upon as sufficient proof of Yashpal Sharma having died due to injuries suffered in accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the canter by respondent No.1.