notice from the Police under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as per Ex.P-10, for which he has given a reply as per Ex.P-11, however, shown some hesitation to state that the accused was the driver of the offending Lorry at the time of the road traffic accident. He stated that in his reply to the said notice, at Ex.P-11, it is rightly written that Maxim D’souza was the driver of the Lorry. However, he did not admit that the said Maxim D’souza was the accused before the Court. Though this witness stated that the accused before the Court was not Maxim D’souza, however, the very same accused i.e. Maxim D’souza, even in the charge framed against him, as well in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) has admitted that he is Maxim D’souza. Therefore, the evidence of PW-12 about the identity of the accused can only be taken as an attempt to create some confusion in the mind of the Court, however, the witness could not able to succeed in his attempt. But his evidence supports the case of the prosecution about the involvement
