(1.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 17.6.1991, Ved Singh, Balbir Singh and Bhup Singh were returning on their respective cycles from Sampla to village Assaundh. Balbir Singh was ahead of Ved Singh and Bhup Singh. At about 9.45 a.m., when they reached near the field of one Phule, Canter No. HR-06/4868 came from Jhajjar side, i.e., opposite direction. Accused Balbir Singh was driving the said Canter rashly and negligently and hit Balbir, cyclist, who was going on his correct/left side. He fell down and suffered injuries. Balbir Singh (accused) stopped for a while after the accident but escaped with the Canter after some time. Balbir, injured, was taken to Civil Hospital, Rohtak, on a tractor which was coming from Jhajjar side. In Community Health Centre, Sampla, Balbir, injured, was examined by Dr. Devi Sharma. He succumbed to his injuries. Case was registered on the statement of Ved Singh under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, against the accused. After investigation, the issued was challaned. He was charged under Section 394-A trial. On the conclusion of the trial, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, vide order dated 5.4.96, found the charge proved against the accused, convicted him under Section 304 A IPC, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
(2.) FEELING that he was unjustly convicted and sentenced by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, Balbir Singh (driver of the Canter) went in appeal to the Court of Session. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak, found no merit in the appeal. He dismissed the same vide order dated 3.9.98. Balbir Singh has not felt disappointed with his conviction and sentence recorded by two courts below and has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) IN my opinion, the conviction recorded against the petitioner by the two courts below is in order and it does not call for interference in revision.