JUDGMENT : 1. The criminal revision petition is directed against the concurrent finding of the courts below holding the petitioners guilty of offence under section 307 IPC. The trial Court has sentenced the petitioners to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to undergo further sentence of 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The Lower Appellate Court confirmed the same. 2. The case of the prosecution as spoken through the witnesses is that, on 26/01/2003 at about 3.30 pm, one Ganesan (PW-2) and his friend Kennedy (PW-3) had their lunch at Everest Hotel, Mayiladurai. Before PW-2 could complete his lunch, PW-3 finished eating and came out of the hotel and waiting for PW-2. The first accused, Appu and the second accused, Giri came to PW-3 and demanded money for brandy. When PW-3 refused to give them money, they started beating PW-3. The supplier in the hotel informed PW-2 that the person who had lunch along with him is being attacked by some persons outside. PW-2 rushed out and tried to pacify the assailants. They attacked PW-2 also. At that time, one Mani, the uncle of PW-2 along with his friend Muthu were passing that way. PW-1 saw his brother-in-law (P.W.2) being attacked by A-1 and A-2 so, he came and tried to defuse the fight. The assailants who were in belligerent mood, started beating PW-1 also. Then, PW-1 and PW-2 together started retaliating. Then, A-1 and A-2 left the place challenging that they will kill PW-1 by tomorrow. 3. On 27/01/2003, at about 12.15 hrs when PW-1 went to the telephone booth near Anantharaman Hotel and came out after making a call, A-1 to A-3 all armed with dangerous weapons (knives) came there. A-1 and A-2 attacked on the head of PW-1; A-3 attacked on the right leg knee of PW-1, then, they all left the place. 4. PW-1 was taken to Mayiladurai hospital in the ambulance. After first aid, on the doctors advice, he was shifted to Government Hospital Tanjavur. PW-1 survived after medical intervention. 5. Based on the complaint given by the injured (P.W.1), Police registered FIR and investigated. The accused persons were arrested and weapons used in the crime were recovered. Through 14 witnesses, 20 documents and 7 material objects, the trial Court held the prosecution has proved the charges and convicted the accused for offence under section 307 IPC. 6. 5. Based on the complaint given by the injured (P.W.1), Police registered FIR and investigated. The accused persons were arrested and weapons used in the crime were recovered. Through 14 witnesses, 20 documents and 7 material objects, the trial Court held the prosecution has proved the charges and convicted the accused for offence under section 307 IPC. 6. On appeal, the Lower Appellate Court, confirmed the judgment of the trial court. The contentions raised by the petitioners is that, the first information report relied by the prosecution was not the first information. The incident on the previous day was not at all probed or proved to show motive. The witnesses to the prosecution are all known to each other and interested witnesses. The 'X' ray report of P.W.1 not filed by the prosecution. So, the nature of injury is inconclusive and were all found to be baseless and unsustasinable by the Lower Appellate Court. 7. In this revision, it is contented that, Lower Appellate Court finding is perverse and bristle with infirmities. The contradictions in the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 not been properly considered by the courts below. Contenting that they are close relatives and known to each other so, it is unsafe to convict the accused person, based on their evidence. 8. This contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is baseless. PW-1 is the injured witness. He has identified the assailants. He has categorically deposed about the incident happened on the previous day and the challenge thrown by A-1 to finish him on next day. Accordingly, on the next day A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 came with Knives and attacked him on the head and knee. The accident register – Ex.P-11 given by the Doctor at Government Hosptial, Mayiladurai and the accident register-Ex.P-15 given by the Doctor at Tanjavur Government Medical College and Hospital and the evidence of the Doctors viz., PW-8 and PW-9 about the nature of injury sustained by PW-1 speaks for itself. The injuries on the head of P.W.1 has been caused by A-1 and A-2. The injury on the right knee has been caused by A-3. The weapon used and the intention of the assailants while causing injuries on P.W.1 holds them guilty of attempt to murder. 9. The relationship between the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 is not suppressed by the prosecution or the witnesses. The injury on the right knee has been caused by A-3. The weapon used and the intention of the assailants while causing injuries on P.W.1 holds them guilty of attempt to murder. 9. The relationship between the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 is not suppressed by the prosecution or the witnesses. It was for rescuing PW-2 on the previous day, PW-1 was brutally attacked on the next day by the accused persons. The evidence of PWs-1 to 3 cogently placed, which clearly proves the motive and intention to kill. The injured witnesses PWs-1 and 2 who were nearby at the time of occurrence on 26.01.2003 had deposed about the manner in which the assailants attacked. The injured (P.W.1) was taken to the hospital immediately by engaging the Ambulance of Balaji Hospital which was near the scene of crime. 10. A veil attempt made to doubt the place of occurrence on the side of the petitioners since, the witnesses have mentioned different place as scene of occurrence viz., Parasu STD booth and Amir Iron shop. This submission is liable to be rejected, in view of the evidence of PW-1, the injured witness. The STD booth and Amir Iron shop are at two shops away from the scene of occurrence. The rough sketch Ex.P-16 indicates the scene of crime. The accused have attacked P.W.1 in between STD booth and Amir iron shop. 11. The judgment of the courts below is based on proper appreciation of law and facts. There is no illegality or perversity in the judgment as contented by the petitioners. Therefore, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed accordingly, dismissed. 12. In view of the dismissal of the revision petition, the accused, A-1 to A-3 are directed to surrender before the trial court to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Bail bond stands cancelled. The period of imprisonment already undergone in this case shall be given set off as provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C.