ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amaresh Kumar Lal) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.—The informant petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 21.5.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st 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. 2. 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 5.7.1995 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 810 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. 3. 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. Cognizance was taken. After the trial, the accused have been acquitted. 4. The opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have appeared through Vakalatnama and no one appears on their behalf even today. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. It further appears that the learned trial court has discarded their evidence as they have appeared to be interested witnesses. 8. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. The impugned order is set aside. 8. 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. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances stated 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. 10. In the result, this revision application is allowed.