JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J.:- Heard both the parties. The prosecution case in brief basing on complaint of the informant, Nagina Khatun, W/o Md. Ali Imam is that the complainant was married seven years ago with accused no.1. After the marriage, accused started demanding Rs. 30,000/- for opening of a tailoring shop which could not be fulfilled. Really her father was not in a position to fulfill her demand. As the demand could not be fulfilled, accused started assaulting the complainant. Once, they tried to kill her by setting fire on her person. Anyhow she could save her. The accused persons snatched away all valuables and driven out from the house. Thereafter, she took shelter at her mother’s place and filed the present case. Cognizance has been taken in the case for the offences under Section 379, 498A of the I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After concluding the trial, learned Magistrate acquitted all the accused persons. Questioning the legality, correctness and propriety, this case has been filed. Towards illegality mainly following discussed points are stressed by the learned counsel for the complainant. Firstly, that witnesses have not been discussed in right prospective as all of them save and except I.O. have been observed interested witnesses only due to their being relation of the complainant which was the natural phenomenon in a case under Section 498A of I.P.A. Most of the incidents are probably to be happened inside the house in absence of others, reported to parental family members of the wife, victim of offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. case. To that extent, learned counsel is right that witnesses have been observed interested which is not the basis to assess a witness, only a little caution is on Court to accept him. Another illegality is about getting exhibited certain paragraphs of the case diary which never can be done, if they are concerning the statement of witnesses as in the instant case. No doubt, certain discrepancy is found in the statement of the I.O. that he has mentioned the P.O. without visiting the same but in 498A case that is not much of relevance and P.O. in rare case is prejudicial to the accused persons. Thus, in my view also the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate is neither fair nor liable to be sustained. Thus, in my view also the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate is neither fair nor liable to be sustained. Accordingly, the revision application is allowed and the order dated 18.10.2001 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Darbhanga in G.R. No. 1885 of 1997/T.R. No.1095 of 2001 is set aside. The matter is remitted back for deciding the same afresh after hearing the parties on merit of the case in accordance with law.