JUDGMENT M. PAPANNA, J. — Judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada in Criminal Appeal No. 116/146 of 1999/1992 upholding conviction under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentence of R.I. for four years thereunder and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default S.I. for 3 months recorded by learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Udala against each of the petitioners in S.T. No. 13/154 of 1992 is under challenge in this revision. 2. Out of trivial family quarrel between members of one and the same family the alleged occurrence took place. At the material time a quarrel between two brothers namely, Shyama and Bhima arising out of repair of their thatched house in which they were residing jointly, ensued. During the said quarrel Shyama assaulted his elder brother, Bhima as a result of which the latter fell down on the ground. In that juncture Bhima’s sons who are the petitioners herein came to his rescue. It is alleged that by means of crow bar, lathi and gupti they assaulted their uncle Shyama who sustained injuries on different parts of his body. On the information lodged by Shyama’s daughter (P.W.2) Khunta P.S. Case No. 34/92 was registered and investigated into. Ultimately they were charge sheeted under Sections 307, 326, 325 and 341/34 I.P.C. by the police on completion of investigation. 3. Learned trial Judge, on consideration of witnesses on record acquitted the petitioners of the charge under Section 341 I.P.C.. He has held that when the accused persons are found to have committed the offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C., it is needless to observe as to whether they committed offence under Sections 326/325 I.P.C. Therefore having come to such a conclu¬sion the trial judge recorded an order of conviction and sentence which was challenged before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Baripada who in turn dismissed the appeal and upheld the convic¬tion and sentence against the petitioners. It is against that, the present revision has been filed before this Court. 4. Appearing for the petitioners, their counsel Shri R.N. Bhuyan urged that finings of learned Courts below that petition¬ers had intention to kill the victim has not been supported by legal evidence. On this ground alone, learned counsel for the petitioners persuaded this Court to allow the revision. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Courts below. 6. On this ground alone, learned counsel for the petitioners persuaded this Court to allow the revision. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Courts below. 6. In the light of the contentions raised by learned coun¬sel for the petitioners I am required to examine if the impugned judgments are based on legal evidence. In other words whether findings of the Courts below are perverse and thus need scrutiny of evidence of the witnesses on record. 7. To start with evidence of P.W.1, daughter of victim it is seen that she was inside the house at the material time. When she came out of her house she saw her father lying down with injuries. This shows that she did not witness any of the peti¬tioners assaulting her father. Similar is the evidence of P.W.2 a child witness who saw her father lying down being injured and none was present by his side. P.W.3 is a post occurrence witness who failed to say how the injuries were sustained by the victim (P.W.5). A perusal of evidence of P.W.5 indicates that he was assaulted by the petitioners causing him injuries on his person. He has stated to have been assaulted by them by means of lathi, crowbar etc. but his daughters P.Ws. 1 and 2 have not stated to have seen petitioners being armed with aforesaid weapons though they have stated to have seen them on the spot after the occur¬rence. It is seen from the record that independent witnesses P.Ws 4 and 7 have not supported the prosecution case. No doubt the doctor (P.W.9) has stated to have examined the victim on police requisition and issued injury report Ext. 5 but according to him some of the injuries were quite possible due to fall. I.O. (P.W.8) being a post occurrence witness who recorded the state¬ments of witnesses after occurrence his evidence cannot be relied upon. Therefore, basing on the state of evidence as above it is not desirable in the eye of law to draw a conclusion of guilt of the petitioners under Section 307/34 I.P.C. particularly when their intention to kill the victim has not been reflected in the evidence on record and the fact that in furtherance of the said intention they attempted at his life has not been established. 8. 8. In the result, the revision is allowed. Order of con¬viction and sentence of the Courts below being illegal are hereby set aside. The petitioners are acquitted of the charge under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and they are discharged of their bail bonds. Revision allowed.