IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.763 of 2002 (Against the judgment and order dated 21.05.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Katihar in G.R. No.1092/1995, Trial No.826/2002) ================================================== Dr. Bhola Prasad Gupta, son of Late Nagina Gupta, resident of village- Manihari, P.S.-Manihari, District- Katihar. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Raj Kishore Jha. 3. Kaushal Kishore Jha (both sons of Late Shambhu Nath Jha, resident of village- Mainhari, P.S.- Manihari, District- Katihar) 4. Bhushan Jha, son of Awadh Narayan Mishra, resident of Naya Bazar, P.S.-Kotwali, District- Bhagalpur. 5. Md. Aslam, son of Ysuf, resident of village-Manihari, P.S.- Manihari, District- Katihar. 6. Santosh Kumar Thakur, son of Sachida Nand Thakur @ Santosh Jha, resident of village- Rangra, P.S.-Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Opposite Parties ================================================== Appearance : For the petitioner : None For the Opposite Party : None For the State : Mrs. I.B. Pandey CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal,J. The informant petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 21.05.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Patna High Court CR. REV. No.763 of 2002 dt.01-12-2011 2 Class, Katihar in G.R. No.1092/1995, Trial No.826/2002 by which the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant was a tenant in the house of the accused Shiv Narayan Jha and had a medical clinic for the last 25 years. On 5.07.1995 at about 9.00 A.M., the informant was sitting in his clinic and his compounder was also there. In the meantime, the accused Shiv Narayan Jha came there. He was followed by other 8-10 persons carrying cots and bed. At the instance of accused Shiv Narayan Jha other accused began to throw the articles of the clinic. The accused Bhushan Jha pointed firearms in the chest of the informant and others assaulted him. He became senseless. His compounder was also assaulted. He came to his rescue. The neighbour Ram Nath came there, then he was assaulted by the accused. Bhushan Jha also assaulted. The police came there. Thereafter, all the accused fled away. On the written report of the informant, Manihari P.S. Case No.85/1995 was instituted against the accused. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.763 of 2002 dt.01-12-2011 3 Cognizance was taken. After the trial, the accused have been acquitted. The opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have appeared through Vakalatnama and no one appears on their behalf even today. It appears that the prosecution has examined six witnesses. The prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case, but their evidence has not been believed only due to the fact that they are interested witnesses. It is settled principle of law that the evidence of eye witnesses and the victim of the occurrence is not to be discarded only on the ground that they are interested witnesses. It further appears that the learned trial court has discarded their evidence as they have appeared to be interested witnesses. It also appears that for the same occurrence, the accused Shiv Narayan Jha has also lodged a case as Manihari P.S. Case No.86/1995. Considering the facts and circumstances stated Patna High Court CR. REV. No.763 of 2002 dt.01-12-2011 4 above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned trial court to consider the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and pass the order in accordance with law. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 1st December, 2011 N.A.F.R./V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)