JUDGMENT 1. - Record has been received. The matter comes up for consideration of stay petition. However, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main revision petition has been finally heard. 2. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that taking the material on record even on its face value, no offence under section 307 r/w Section 34 IPC can be said to have been made out against any of the petitioners. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor supports the impugned order. 4. I have perused the First Information Report, the statements of the injured Kanhaiyalal recorded by the police, statements of first informant, the injury report of Kanhaiyalal and Mohanlal dated 13.3.2000 issued by a Medical Jurist Ladnu, the subsequent report of the Medical Jurist dated 5.4.2000, so also the X-ray plate and X-ray report from the Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer dated 28.3.2000. 5. In my opinion, even considering the statements of Kanhaiyalal and Mohanlal, in conjunction with the statements of Dhanraj - the informant, I am of the clear view that the circumstances in which the incident is said to have taken place, the manner in which the petitioners are said to have attacked, the victims, and considering the resultant injury found on the person of Kanhaiyalal, and the fact that no weapons of offence have at all been recovered by the investigating agency, it is more than clear that no offence u /s. 307 or 307/34 IPC is even prima facie established against any of the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The charges framed against the petitioners for the offence under sections 307 & 307/34 IPC are quashed. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge shall now accordingly proceed in accordance with law i.e. Section 228(1)(a) Cr.P.C. The petitioners are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 23.7.2001.Revision petition allowed. *******