Judgment :- The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Vellore in C.C.No.18 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304 A of IPC and he was sentenced to under go one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC; to pay a fine of Rs.750/- in default to under go one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and no sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and the siad conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2005. Against the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred this revision. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 9. 2002 at about 9.00 p.m, when PW3 was going along with his friend near the Court campus road, a lorry which was coming in the opposite direction, hit against the TVS 50 vehicle and both the deceased and the pillion rider fell down. Both the deceased and PW3 were immediately taken to the hospital, but the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The complaint given by PW1 is Ex.P1. PW3 sustained grievous injuries and Ex.P7 is the wound Certificate. PW9 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the deceased Ravi and Ex.P4 is the post-mortem report. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that both the trial Court and the Appellate Court mostly relied on the sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer and drawn a presumption against the accused and convicted the petitioner. The sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer is quite contrary even to the facts of the case and the Mahazars were also prepared by the same officers. Though in the sketch it is mentioned as if, the TVS 50 vehicle was on the left side of the road and the lorry also shown on the same side of the road, the scene of occurrence as has been pointed out, cannot be presumed that the accident had taken place only in that manner as shown in the sketch. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted the witnesses PW1 and PW2 have not stated that the vehicle went in a high speed and though PW3 has stated that the lorry came in a high speed, it cannot be accepted and no presumption can be drawn from that part of evidence that the accident had taken place only because of the negligence on the part of the deceased. 5. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that PW3, who has accompanied the deceased has clearly stated in his evidence that the TVS 50 vehicle was going only on the left side of the road and the lorry came in a high speed and only the lorry, which made an attempt to overtake another lorry had dashed the vehicle driven by the deceased. 6. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that from the evidence of PW3, it is clear that the lorry was driven with over speed and it has gone to the right side of the road by making an attempt to overtake another lorry. This evidence of PW3 clearly establishes the rash and negligence on the part of the accused. 7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by both the parties and perused the judgments rendered by both the Courts and also the copy of the report. 8. Though the conviction of an accused could not be made mainly relying on the sketch alone, the conviction can be made based on the evidence given by PW3. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 establish that the lorry was driven with over speed and further the evidence of PW3 is that the accident had taken place only when the lorry made an attempt to overtake another vehicle. 9. This Court finds from the evidence of the witnesses, the case against the accused is established by the prosecution. Therefore, the conviction of the accused is maintained. 10. With regard to the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2002 and the petitioner had already been in jail for a period of one month. He has already paid the fine amount of Rs.5,750/- on 212. 2005. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner alone is modified for the period already undergone. He has already paid the fine amount of Rs.5,750/- on 212. 2005. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner alone is modified for the period already undergone. The petitioner is directed to pay an additional fine amount of Rs.5,000/-in default, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The petitioner has to pay the fine amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 12. With the above modification, this revision petition is disposed of as partly allowed.