JUDGMENT B.P. Singh, J. - Gulab Chandra Sonkar, Indresh Kumar Sonkar and Sushil Kumar Sonkar were tried in the court of Xth Advil. Sessions Judge, Allahabad in S.T. No. 67 of 1987 for the offences under Secs.302/3071.P.C., P.S. Colonelganj, District Allahabad. They were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 27.2.1990. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 18th March, 1984 some hot words were exchanged between the accused Indresh Kumar Sonkar and Nankau Baniya an the question of taking bath on the Tube- well of Chhunnan Guru. Accused Gulab Chandra 5onkar had taken the side of his son Indresh Kumar Sonkar and both of them had assaulted Nankau. At 2 p.m. on the same day some villagers went to the house of Gulab Chandra Sonkar to remonstrate with him for his misbehaviour with Nankau. Some hot words were also exchanged between the villagers and Gulab Chandra Sonkar at that time. Gulab Chandra Sonkar then fired from his gun. The sound of the shot attracted the first informant, Brij Kumar, and his brother Vijai Kumar upon the scene of occurrence. Brij Kumar saw that the accused Gulab Chandra Sonkar was standing armed with a gun upon the roof of his house and his sons, Indresh Kumar Sonkar and Sushil Kumar Sonkar, were exhorting him to kill. Gulab Chandra Sonkar then fired upon the crowd, as a result of which Knadha Lal, Roshan Lal Yadav, Kaishal. Kishore, Chandra Kishore, Hire Lal and Prem Chandra received injuries. The -injuries of Kandhai Lal and Roshan Lal were of grievous nature. Vijai Kumar and others brought injured Kandhai Lal to the hospital while the first informant, Brij Kumar, took the injured Roshan Lal to Police Station Colonelganj where the F.I.R. was lodged by him at 2.25 p.m. under Section 307 I.P.C. against all the three accused persons. Kandhai Lal dies on the same day in the hospital. The case was converted in a case under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. Routine investigation followed and the accused were charge-sheeted of having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 I.P.C. 4. At the trial the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Kandhai Lal dies on the same day in the hospital. The case was converted in a case under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. Routine investigation followed and the accused were charge-sheeted of having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 I.P.C. 4. At the trial the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In all the prosecution examined seven witnesses i.e., Brij Kumar P.W. 1, Ram Kishore P.W. 2, Vijai Kumar P.W. 3, Chandra Kishore P.W. 4, Muina Lal P.W. 5, Prem Chandra P.W. 6 and Hari Lal P.W. 7 in the Base. The accused persons did not lead any evidence in their defence. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons because none of the witnesses of fact had supported the prosecution version of the occurrence. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial court, Brij Kumar had filed an appeal against acquittal along with an application for Special Leave to file appeal. Subsequently the appeal was converted into an application for revision. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. In my opinion this application for revision as no force and is liable to be dismissed because all the witnesses of fact, who were examined in the trial court, turned hostile and did not involve these accused persons in the crime in question. Even the first informant, Brij Kumar (P.W. 1) and the injured persons i.e., Chandra Kishore (P.W. 4), Prem Chandra (P.W. 6) and Hari Lal (P.W.7) did not implicate these accused persons in the occurrence in which Kandhai Lal received fatal injuries and these persons had received gun shot wounds. Thus there was absolutely no legal evidence before the trial court on the basis of which a finding of conviction could be recorded. Learned Sessions Judge had no option but to acquit the accused persons. 7. In this view of the matter his application for revision is hereby dismissed.