Judgment :- This revision has been preferred against the judgment in C.A.No.127 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, which had arisen against the judgment in C.C.No.100 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Attur, Salem. The accused was charged under Section 304(A) IPC (2 counts) and 337 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10. 2001 at about 11.00 pm the injured P.W.2 along with his friends Suresh and Murugan were traveling in TVS-50 from North to South on the Kandasamy Pudur Malliyakari – Thammapatti Road, the accused who came from the opposite direction in the lorry bearing registration No.TN-59 E 8941 in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the TVS-50, in which P.W.2 and other deceased were proceeding, causing instantaneous death to Suresh and Murugesan and grievous injury to P.W.2. 3. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate and on appearance of the accused copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused and when the charge was explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined. 4. P.W.1 is an ocular witness to the occurrence. He had prepared Ex.P.1-complaint with the police. According to him, at the time of occurrence, the accused had driven the ill-fated lorry in a high speed rashly and negligently and dashed against the TVS.50, in which three persons were proceeding from north to south and that 2 person died on the spot and P.W.2-Rajkumar had sustained grievous injury on his leg and that he send all the three in another vehicle which was passing by at that time to the Government hospital, Salem. 5.P.W.2 is an injured in the accident. 5.P.W.2 is an injured in the accident. According to him, on the date of occurrence at about 11.00 pm he along with Murugesan and Suresh were proceeding in TVS-50 from north to south on the extreme left side of the road and that at the time of occurrence TVS-50 was stopped and he was attending to call of nature and at that time the lorry which came in the opposite direction driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the TVS-50 causing instantaneous death to Suresh and Murugesan and he had sustained grievous injury on his right leg and that he has lost three teeth in the lower jaw. 6.P.W.3 has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.4 has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.5 has also seen the victims in the place of occurrence after the occident. 7.P.W.12 is the Inspector of Police in Kariyapatti Police Station. At the time of occurrence he was in charge of Thammapatti Police Station and after receiving Ex.P.1-complaint from P.W.1 he had registered the case under Cr.No.261 of 2001 under Section 279, 338, 304(A) (2 counts) IPC. Ex.P.5 is the FIR. He had proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared the mahazar-Ex.P.8 in the presence of witnesses and also had drawn the rough sketch-Ex.P.7. He had conducted inquest on the corpse of the deceased on the same day between 7.45 am and 9.45 am. Ex.P.9 is the inquest report for the corpse of Suresh and Ex.P.10 is the inquest report for the corpse of Murugesan. He has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The accused was arrested on 10. 2001 at about 10.15 am and produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand and that the regular Inspector of Police had continued the further investigation. 8.P.W.9 is the doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the corpse of Murugesan and issued Ex.P.4-postmortem certificate. He has also examined P.W.2-Rajkumar for the injuries he had sustained and issued Ex.P.3-wound certificate. The doctor has seen two fractures on the right leg of P.W.2 and also two fractures on the lower jaw and also noted missing of two teeth in the lower jaw and he has also noticed an incised wound measuring 5 x 3 cms bone deep on the lower jaw. The doctor has seen two fractures on the right leg of P.W.2 and also two fractures on the lower jaw and also noted missing of two teeth in the lower jaw and he has also noticed an incised wound measuring 5 x 3 cms bone deep on the lower jaw. 9.P.W.10 is the then Head constable of Malliyakari Police Station, who had registered a case under Cr.No.261 of 2001 on the basis of Ex.P.1-complaint preferred by P.W.1 under Section 279, 338 & 304(A) IPC. Ex.P.5 is the FIR. 10.P.W.11 is the motor vehicle inspector, who had inspected the vehicles involved in the accident. He has opined that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect. Ex.P.6 is his report. 11. The successor of P.W.12 has continued the investigation and field the final report. 12. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity with the crime. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge has held that the accused is guilty under Section 279, 337, 304(A) (2 counts) IPC and convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo 3 months RI under each counts and also levied a fine to the tune of Rs.8,500/-. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused preferred an appeal before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, in C.A.No.127 of 2004. The First Appellate judge, after meticulously weighing the evidence let in before the Court, has confirmed the judgment of the learned trial Judge, which necessitated the accused to prefer this revision. 13.Now the point for determination in this revision is whether the accused was driving the lorry bearing registration No.TN-59 E 8941 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the TVS-50, in which P.W.2 and other two persons viz. Suresh and Murugesan were proceeding at the place of occurrence? 14.The Point:- The important piece of evidence which will go to show that the accused had driven the lorry rashly and negligently is Ex.P.7-rough sketch. P.W.1 & P.W.2 are the ocular witnesses. P.W.2 is an injured witness in the same occurrence. Suresh and Murugesan were proceeding at the place of occurrence? 14.The Point:- The important piece of evidence which will go to show that the accused had driven the lorry rashly and negligently is Ex.P.7-rough sketch. P.W.1 & P.W.2 are the ocular witnesses. P.W.2 is an injured witness in the same occurrence. According to him, at the time of occurrence, he along with Suresh and Murugesan were proceeding in TVS-50 from north to south at the Thammapatti – Attur road on the extreme left side of the road and the accused who was driving the lorry bearing registration No.TN59 E 8941, while, overtaking a mini lorry near the place of occurrence, was coming in the opposite direction swerve to his extreme right side of the road and dashed against the TVS-50 causing instantaneous death to other two persons viz. Suresh and Murugesan and caused grievous injury on his legs. 14(a) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has pointed out some of the discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. According to P.W.1, at the time of occurrence both the accused as well as the injured along with the deceased were proceeding from north to south in the respective vehicles. But according to P.W.2, the injured, deceased Suresh and Murugesan were proceeding in TVS-50 from north to south and the lorry driver was proceeding in his lorry from south to north. In this connection if we peruse the complaint preferred by P.W.1, the complainant has stated that at the time of occurrence TVS-50 was proceeding from north to south and lorry was proceeding from south to north. So the documentary evidence alone will prevail. The other discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that according to P.W.2 TVS-50 was stationed and he (P.W.2) was attending to call of nature, but in Ex.P.1 it is not stated that at the time of accident TVS50 was stopped and P.W.2 was attending to call of nature. But the above said minor discrepancies will not derive us to the conclusion that there was no accident at all occurred as narrated by the prosecution. According to the motor vehicle Inspector, he had inspected both the TVS-50 as well as the lorry after the occurrence and issued Ex.P.6-inspection report. But the above said minor discrepancies will not derive us to the conclusion that there was no accident at all occurred as narrated by the prosecution. According to the motor vehicle Inspector, he had inspected both the TVS-50 as well as the lorry after the occurrence and issued Ex.P.6-inspection report. He has noted damage both in the lorry as well as in the TVS50 and that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect of both the vehicles. Since the prosecution has not proved any x-ray to show the nature of the injury sustained by P.W.2 in the accident, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused only under Section 337 and not under Section 338 IPC besides convicting under Section3 04(A) IPC (2 counts). There is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the accused as to what necessitated him to go to his extreme right hand side at the time of occurrence to dash against the TVS-50. 14(b) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on 1991 LW Crl. 232 (Chandrasekar Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Dhamapuri Police Station, Dharmapuri), would contend that the onus of proof continues to remain on the prosecution and the accused need not prove his innocence and that in this case the learned counsel would contend that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has committed a rash and negligent act. The facts of the above said ratio decidendi is that the accused had driven a lorry, according to the prosecution rashly and negligently dashed against a hut, which was situated on the right side of the road. It has been held by this Court in that case that: "the accused would be prima facie guilty of negligence if vehicle left the road and it was for the person, who was driving the vehicle, to explain the circumstances under which the vehicle had left the road. These circumstances may be beyond control of the driver and may, even exculpate him, but in the absence of such a situation the fact that the vehicle had left the road would be evidence of negligence on the part of the driver." It was in evidence in that case that due to sudden crossing of a cyclist, the accused had swerve the lorry to his extreme left, which resulted in the accident. But the facts of the above cited case differs from the facts of the case on hand because there at absolutely no material on record to show that only due to some contingency a the time of accident the accused to swerve the lorry to the extreme right, which resulted in the accident. It is in evidence that while overtaking another mini lorry the accused had dashed against TVS-50 as I have already indicated above. A mere glance at Ex.P.7-rough sketch will derive us to arrived at an inference that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry/accused the accident had occurred. The maxim Res Ipso Loquitur is applicable to the present facts of the case through Ex P7 rough sketch. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Judges of the Courts below. Point is answered accordingly. 15. In the result, the revision is dismissed confirming the findings of the learned First additional Sessions Judge, Vellore, in C.A.No.127 of 2004. The trial Court is directed to secure the accused by issuing N.B.W and to send to prison to serve out the sentence.