Mandhata Singh, J.:- This revision application has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 04-01-2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna vide Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No.337/1995, G.R. No. 3837/1995, Trial No.738 of 2001/537 of 2002. Prosecution case in brief is that on 17.10.1995 at about 6.30 P.M. all the five accused persons, who are informant’s Gotia, variously armed with Lathi and Danda entered into the informant’s house and assaulted his family members, that has been specified by levelling allegation that accused Devanand Pandit assaulted informant’s sister-in-law(Bhabhi) by means of Lathi, which fractured his left shoulder, his nephew Laxmi Pandit also injured, his temporal region was broken. Informant’s brother’s daughter-in-law also received injury. On hue and cry made by family members, neighbours came and saved the informant and his family members. Reason behind the incident is said to be pelting of brick bats by informant’s son. All the five charge sheeted, tried and in that course witnesses examined and statement of accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, after hearing the parties judgment is delivered acquitting all the accused persons. It is pertinent to mention here that one of the accused persons, namely Santosh Pandit in course of trial died. So, proceeding dropped against him. Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are Kamta Singh (P.W.1), Laxmi Pandit (P.W.2) one of the victims, Vishwanath Pandit (P.W.3) informant of the case, Dina Nath Pandit (P.W.4), Ramchandra Pandit(P.W.5), Kiran Devi (P.W.6) and Mahajani Devi (P.W.7) one of the victims. Defence has also examined a single witness Shankar Kumar. Now the only point raised on behalf of the petitioner, who is the informant of the case, is that patent error has been committed by the trial court in not taking step to get examined the Doctor and Investigating Officer of the case, which only is taken for maintainability of the revision also. Now the only point raised on behalf of the petitioner, who is the informant of the case, is that patent error has been committed by the trial court in not taking step to get examined the Doctor and Investigating Officer of the case, which only is taken for maintainability of the revision also. This aspect I gone thoroughly after going through the order sheet as suggested by the learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 to 5 that informant remained present in course of trial all along and he assisted the prosecution to get examined the witnesses but while at the end when the case was pending for examination of the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, a prayer was made on his behalf along with the prosecution to close the prosecution evidence and then only prosecution evidence was closed. So, there appears no justification allowing him to raise the conclusion reached by the trial court on the point of non-examination of any of the witnesses. On merit of the case nothing has been submitted for non-appreciation of the witnesses or evidence in the judgment by the trial court. After going through the judgment, I also find no infirmity committed by the trial court. Witnesses are well discussed and then only conclusion has been reached. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.