BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against an order of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below under Sections 341/326/324/34, IPC whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. 00, in default to undergo R. I. for two months. ( 2 ) THE skeletal picture of the prosecution story as revealed during trial is as follows : petitioner along with two other accused (since acquitted), namely, Pitabas Rath and Benudhar Rath, having entertained a common intention caused wrongful restraint and voluntarily inflicted grevious hurt to Rabindranath Satpathy (informant) and his brother Narendranath Satpathy. They also used slang language at the informant and his associate. Accordingly the matter was reported at Balkati Outpost and the A. S. I. of Balkati Outpost sent the report to O. I. C. of Balianta P. S. as a reason whereof a case was registered against the petitioner and his other associates vide Balianta P. S. Case No. 87/86 under Sections 341, 326, 324/34, IPC. ( 3 ) IN order to bring home the charge against the accused persons, prosecution had examined 11 witnesses and the defence examined two witnesses. The trial Court after appraisal of evidence was inclined to acquit the other two accused persons, namely, Pitabas Rath and Benudhar Rath of all the charges and acquitted the petitioner of the offence under Sections 323 and 294, IPC, but convicted him under Ss. 341, 326, 324 read with Section 34, IPC. Being aggrieved by the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, petitioner had filed an appeal before the Court of Session which was transferred to the Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar who disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 56/92 and upheld the conviction and sentence. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, the petitioner has filed this revisional application. ( 4 ) MR. S. K. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that while on the same set of evidence which had been placed before the learned trial Court against the petitioner and other accused persons as well, the other accused persons had been acquitted of the charges, there was no reason to adopt a different standard against the present petitioner. S. K. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that while on the same set of evidence which had been placed before the learned trial Court against the petitioner and other accused persons as well, the other accused persons had been acquitted of the charges, there was no reason to adopt a different standard against the present petitioner. There was no independent charge framed against the petitioner under Sections 323, 324 and 341, IPC, save and except, Section 34, IPC. Therefore, in this factual backdrop the learned Magistrate as well as the appellate Court have committed grave and serious error by passing an order of conviction against the petitioner. In support of his submission he has relied upon a decision reported in (2001) 2 Orissa LR 654 (Purna Badnaik v. State of Orissa) to which I was a party. It has been held therein :-"miss. Sinha, the learned State Defence Counsel, has invited our attention to the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5. She has further submitted that on the same set of evidence when the learned trial Judge recorded an order of acquittal of other accused persons, there was no reason as to why the appellant shall be held guilty. It has been further submitted that there was no independent head of charge framed against the appellant under S. 302, Indian Penal Code, and, therefore, on the basis of the charge framed under S. 302/34, Indian Penal Code, against all the accused persons, the trial Judge could not have held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under S. 302, Indian Penal Code, alone. " ( 5 ) FROM the ratio of the judgment it has been explicitly clear that if no independent charge has been framed against the accused-petitioner he could not have been convicted under the provisions of Sections 323, 324, 341 read with Section 34, IPC. Therefore, on that ground alone, the benefit should have been given to the petitioner. Accordingly, I am not in a position to subscribe my view to the observation made by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court. ( 6 ) IN the result, the conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below fail and, accordingly the revisional application succeeds. The accused-petitioner is acquitted of the charge. Petition allowed