JUDGEMENT Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. 1. The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar in G.R.No.30/1997, Trial No.28/2002 by which the accused opposite party no.2 has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 447, 323, 324 and 504/34 of the I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 4.01.1997 at about 6.00 P.M., the informant was sitting in front of door of his toddy shop. In the meantime, the accused Patna High Court CR. REV. No.449 of 2002 dt.29-09-2011 2 Jhantu Sada and Rajgir Sweeper came there and asked for toddy. The informant said that toddy was not available. Thereafter, Jhantu Sada abused him, which was protested by the informant. Thereafter, both the accused assaulted him. Krishna Devi, wife of the informant came to his rescue, she was also assaulted. Jhantu Sada also assaulted the informant with knife which caused injury on the left arm. On Hulla, Bhuvesh Thakur, Rohit Sada and some other persons came there. Thereafter, both the accused fled away. On the fardbeyan of the informant, Katihar P.S. Case No.5/1997 was instituted. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate for trial. The charges were framed against the sole accused as the co-accused Rajgir Sweeper died prior to the trial. After the trial, the sole accused has been acquitted by the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the material on the record, it appears that five witnesses have Patna High Court CR. REV. No.449 of 2002 dt.29-09-2011 3 been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of them, P.W.1 Krishna Devi is the wife of the informant and P.W.2 is the informant. The defence of the accused is that due to enmity he has been falsely implicated in this case. It appears from the impugned judgment that the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and has come to the conclusion that no independent witness has seen the occurrence and their evidence is quite doubtful and the evidence has been discarded. It appears from the impugned judgment that the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and has come to the conclusion that no independent witness has seen the occurrence and their evidence is quite doubtful and the evidence has been discarded. P.W.1 and P.W.2, wife and husband, have supported the prosecution case. Their evidence is not required to be discarded, if their evidence is convincing and reliable, the learned Magistrate has held that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not convincing and not supported by any other witnesses, as such, their evidence has not been relied upon and accordingly, the accused has been acquitted. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed.