MOHD.YAMIN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur dated 25 -8 -2000 by which he upheld the conviction of the accused petitioner passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month's simple imprisonment for offence under Section 279 IPC and three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 250/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month's simple imprisonment for offence under I Section 337 IPC and for offence under Section 304 -A IPC, he was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner, as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the record. The facts of the case in brief may be narrated as follows: - On 26 -6 -1991 Samunder Singh lodged a report at Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur to the effect that at about 7.30 p.m. his sons Ravinder and Bharat Singh were returning from the well of Kishan Singh after taking their bath. When they reached their field at the same time Tractor No. RRD -7384 alongwith trolley driven by Shiv Singh came with high speed and dashed against both the children. Ravinder died at the spot as he was crushed by the front wheel and Bharat Singh suffered some injuries. It were Shiv Singh, Pool Singh and Kartar Singh who saw the incident. The police after having registered the case under various sections and challaned the accused petitioner and the learned Magistrate after holding trial convicted the accused petitioner as stated above. He filed an appeal which was dismissed. Hence this revision.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was conscious that in revisions, re -appreciation of evidence can be done only when there are some salient features by which it appear that injustice has been caused and they are brought to the notice of the Court. He submitted that in this case the witnesses have stated that there was no fault of the accused petitioner and that the boy suddenly came in front of the tractor. With the help of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor, I have gone through the entire evidence.;