S.S. Mishra, J. The present Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bargarh in Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2011, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned J.M.S.C., Bargarh in G.R. Case No.488 of 1997 (T.R. No.106 of 2010) was confirmed.

2. The petitioner was subjected to prosecution in Bargarh P.S. Case 173/1997 registered under Sections 341/323/325/294/34 of I.P.C corresponding to G.R. Case No.488 of 1997 (T.R. No.106 of 2010). 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Informant-Kanta Meher lodged a report at Bargarh Police Station on 05.08.1997 alleging that while his uncle Bhagirathi Meher was returning home by his cycle, the petitioner along with his father stopped him near Manabandha bridge and both of them assaulted him by means of crow bar. Due to assault, his uncle sustained injuries on his body. When his uncle shouted due to the injury, the witnesses, namely, Sahadev Mallick and Akura Meher rushed to the spot and forbade both the petitioner and his father. On the basis of such allegation, F.I.R. was lodged at Bargarh Police Station, which was registered as Bargarh P.S. Case No.173 of 1997. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and his father under Sections 341/323/325/294/34 of I.P.C. and charges were framed against them under those Sections. The petitioner and co-accused persons were put to trial. During pendency of the trial, the accused Sukru Meher died for which the case against him was abated. 4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined altogether eight witnesses and exhibited six documents. The informant was examined as P.W.2 whereas the Doctor was examined as P.W.7, the victim was examined as P.W.5 and the I.O. of the case was examined as P.W.8. The plea of defence is that of complete denial. In proof of their plea, no evidence is adduced from the side of the defence. 5. The learned trial Court analyzed the entire evidence on record and found the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 341/323/325/34 of the I.P.C. However, the learned J.M.S.C., Bargarh found the petitioner not guilty of the offence under Section 294 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment of three months for the offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C., the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

6. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2010 passed by the learned J.M.S.C., Bargarh in G.R. Case No.488 of 1997 (T.R. No.106 of 2010) was called in question by filing Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2011 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bargarh, by the petitioner.

7. Since the appeal has failed, the petitioner has challenged the judgment/order of conviction and sentence of both the Courts below in the present Criminal Revision Petition. 8. Heard Mr. P.K. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 9. Perused the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner and meticulously evaluated the evidence on record. 10. In the present case, the accused persons were put to trial. When the trial was going on, accused Sukru Meher, the father of the petitioner died on 20.01.2009 as a result of which the trial against said Sukru Meher remained abated. Insofar as the present accused/petitioner is concerned, the prosecution had relied