Judgment 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 852/89. 2. At the very first instance objection has been raised regarding the maintainability of the revision petition by the private party i.e. the informant against the case registered through investigation by police. Reference has been made to a judgment of the Apex Court wherein it was held that in exceptional cases where there is error apparent on the face of the records or jurisdictional error or there is miscarriage of justice then the revision petition filed by the private party can also be entertained. Here in the present case it is stated that there is error apparent on the face of the records as the learned court below has given go bye to the general principles with regard to appreciation of evidence. 3. The case was registered under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is allegation that the informant and his son both had been assaulted on their vital parts by Lathi by the accused-opposite parties. The case is of the year 1989 and the trial started after framing of charge on 3.7.1995 and four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution but then the prosecution evidence was closed giving no change to the prosecution to bring the Doctor and the Investigating Officer. Reasons being recorded for the delay in disposal of the case, as per the observations made by the Apex Court. Now both the injured witnesses have supported the prosecution case. P.W.4, who happens to be the independent witness, has stated that he has no knowledge about the occurrence and as such he had been declared hostile. The acquittal has been recorded on the ground that medical evidence is not there regarding the assault on the person of the injured and that the independent witness has not supported the prosecution case. The learned court below has given go bye to the principle that an injured person could not fall upon others leaving aside his real assailants. Even if the Doctors evidence is not there and if the injured witnesses have supported the case and some injuries are there on their persons as per their evidence then even if the case may not come under Section 307 I.P.C. then also there might be offence under lenient sections. Even if the Doctors evidence is not there and if the injured witnesses have supported the case and some injuries are there on their persons as per their evidence then even if the case may not come under Section 307 I.P.C. then also there might be offence under lenient sections. Moreover, in a case under Section 307 I.P.C. injury report is of not much avail if there is attempt by deadly weapon aiming towards the vital parts of the body then also Section 307 l.P.C. attracts. A case cannot fall only on the ground that interested witnesses have been examined. Criminal jurisprudence requires that in such circumstances the evidence of partisan witnesses are to be scrutinised closely. Nowhere it is there in the judgment that the evidence of the injured witnesses have been disbelieved. Thus I find that the impugned judgment is definitely perverse and it is a fit case where this Court should interfere. Thus this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside and the learned court below is hereby asked to writ fresh judgment on the materials on record. 4. It is made clear that the observations or discussions made above would not in any way influence the mind of the Sessions Judge in coming to a just decision of the case as this Court has not passed any comment on the merit but only to show the perversity of the judgment, reference has been made on merit. It is expected that the judgment should be delivered within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the accused persons before the court below, who are hereby directed to appear before the court below by 23rd April, 2001.