JUDGMENT : A.K. Trivedi, J. Petitioners Ajablal Mahto and Yogo Pandit who have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo S.I. for three months, under Section 341 of the IPC and directed each of them to undergo S.I. for one month, under Section 347 of the IPC and directed each of them to undergo S.I. for one year with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment dated 17.7.1998 passed by Sri Kanta Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rosera, in G.R. No. 243 of 1988 as well as judgment of confirmation dated 9.7.2002 passed by 5th Additional Sessions, Samastipur in Cr. Appeal No. 96 of 1998 have challenged the concurrent finding in the present revision petition. 2. On account of absence of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter has properly been browsed with the assistance of learned Additional P.P. Moreover, Section 403 of the Cr PC did not require presence of learned counsel as a matter of right. 3. From the grounds of revision petition as well as from the respective judgments, it is apparent that the learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal concluded its finding under para-8 as well as para-9 of its judgment. From perusal of the same, it is apparent that the learned Appellate Court had not discussed the evidence available on the record before dismissing the appeal and on account thereof, certainly the judgment of Appellate Court happens to be erroneous side by side, the learned Appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal because of the fact that being Appellate Court, it was expected to have proper scrutiny of oral/documentary evidence available on record before coming to any finding. 4. The power to be exercised in tune of revisional jurisdiction is limited one and unless there happens to be manifest error visualizing on the record, there should not be appreciation of evidence in routine manner. 5. 4. The power to be exercised in tune of revisional jurisdiction is limited one and unless there happens to be manifest error visualizing on the record, there should not be appreciation of evidence in routine manner. 5. The version of prosecution originate on the basis of first information report given by PW 6 Nago Pandit on 15.5.1988 as 2.30 p.m. alleging inter alia that on the preceding evening while he was returning from Janta Chowk after purchasing house hold articles and reached near Shiv temple at about 6 p.m. his co-villager Tula Mahto, Ajablal Mahto and Yogo Pandit intercepted him and further directed why not he is executing a sale-deed, whereupon he refused. Then, thereafter, all the three persons abused him, began to assault with fist and slaps and caught hold him, took him away to the house of Tula Mahto where they took his L.T.I. on three papers. On his alarm Jagidsh Pandit, Ram Jatan Pandit and Ganesh Pandit along with others arrived and rescued. On the basis of the aforesaid first information report Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 81 of 1988 was registered whereupon investigation was taken up and charge-sheet was filed leading to trial meeting the ultimate result, the subject matter of instant revision. 6. The record shows examination of six witnesses during trial. Ganesh Pandit (PW 1) had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence while he was near Shiv temple, he saw Nago Pandit coming from market who was apprehended by Tula Mahto, Ajablal Mahto and Yogo Pandit who took him to the darwaja of Tula Mahto. During midst thereof they abused as well as also assaulted with fist and slaps. Yogo Pandit caught hold Nago Pandit assisted by Ajablal Mahto and Tula Mahto took L.T.I. over paper. There was uproar and then thereafter Nago Pandit was released. 7. During cross-examination at para-3 he had accepted pendency of a criminal case launched by accused Yogo Pandit. He was not cross-examined on the point of assault although was cross-examined with regard to taking of L.T.I. He has denied the suggestion that no occurrence as alleged had taken place. He also shown his ignorance with regard to the cases being lodged amongst the parties. This witness had not spoken regarding genesis of occurrence relating to execution of document. 8. PW 2 is Shivaji Mahto resident of different village. He also shown his ignorance with regard to the cases being lodged amongst the parties. This witness had not spoken regarding genesis of occurrence relating to execution of document. 8. PW 2 is Shivaji Mahto resident of different village. He has stated that while he was returning from his field on the alleged date and time of occurrence, he found Nago Pandit returning from Janta Chowk. When he reached near Shiv temple Tula Mahto, Ajablal Mahto and Yogo Pandit out of whom Tula Mahto enquired about registration of a land which was denied by Nago Pandit. Then thereafter, all of them assaulted Nago Pandit, took him to his darwaja where forcibly taken L.T.I. over three blank stamp paper and then thereafter let him off. 9. During cross-examination at para-3 had stated that first of all there was an altercation in between Nago Pandit and Tula Krishna Mahto. Tula Krishna Mahto was insisting to execute sale-deed with respect to five kathas of land which was refused by Nago Pandit. He had further stated that aforesaid talk was at the house of Nago Pandit. Then thereafter, nothing had happened. Again he said that thereafter Tula Krishna Mahto had gone. Again he said that Tula Krishna Mahto took L.T.I. of Nago Pandit on stamp paper. Again he disclosed that Tula Krishna Mahto took L.T.I. of Nago Mahto on the following day at his verandah. In para-4, he had shown his ignorance with regard to pendency of cases amongst the parties. In para-5, he had denied that no such type of occurrence have taken place. Therefore, this witness has changed the manner of occurrence in its entirety. 10. PW 3 had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence while he was returning from Janta Chowk Hat and reached near Shiv temple, he saw assemblage of persons at the darwaja of Tula Krishna Mahto. He also gone there and found Ajablal Mahto, Yogo Pandit apprehending Nato Pandit and Tula Krishna Mahto engaged in taking L.T.I. On query Nago Pandit had disclosed that Yogo Pandit and Ajablal Mahto dragged him from near temple, assaulted him and then took L.T.I. over three papers. Then thereafter, accused persons let him off. At para-3, he had admitted that he has got litigation with Tula Krishna Mahto since 1983. Then thereafter, accused persons let him off. At para-3, he had admitted that he has got litigation with Tula Krishna Mahto since 1983. In para-4, he had shown boundary of P.O. land as North house of Baijnath Mahto, South Tula Krishna Mahto, East Tula Krishna Mahto and West road. He had further disclosed that when he reached at the place of occurrence, he saw ink smeared at the thumb of informant. Then he enquired from the informant who narrated the event. In para-5, he had stated that both the accused that means to say, Ajablal Mahto and Yogo Pandit have caught hold Nago Pandit from both sides. As such he is not a witness over main occurrence. 11. PW 4 is Jagdish Pandit who had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence while he was returning from Chowk and reached in front of darwaja of Tula Krishna Mahto, he saw Tula Krishna Mahto, Ajablal Mahto and Yogo Pandit accompanying Nago Pandit to their darwaja and during said course were also assaulting him with fist and slaps. Again he corrected by stating that they have taken to darwaja of Tula Krishna Mahto where they have taken L.T.I. of Nago Pandit over three blank stamp papers. Nothing more had happened. Again volunteered that there was uproar before taking of L.T.I. In para-5 of his cross-examination, he had shown his relationship with informant. He had further admitted that he had deposed against Yogo Pandit in a case filed by Ramjatan Pandit. In para-5, he had shown the boundary of the place of occurrence North Baijnath Mahto, South Ramgulam Pandit, East Tula Mahto and West road. He had further admitted that at the time of occurrence, none of the persons belonging to boundary had arrived at the place of occurrence. He had further stated that he had seen the occurrence from the road. In para-7, he had further stated that Tula Mahto, Ajablal Mahto have assaulted Nago Pandit by fist and slaps. The accused persons have caught hold the informant at the road and took him to his Dalan and during midst thereof, they have also assaulted. Para-8 happens to be the contradiction. 12. In para-7, he had further stated that Tula Mahto, Ajablal Mahto have assaulted Nago Pandit by fist and slaps. The accused persons have caught hold the informant at the road and took him to his Dalan and during midst thereof, they have also assaulted. Para-8 happens to be the contradiction. 12. PW 5 had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence after hearing alarm, he came to the darwaja of Tula Krishna Mahto where he saw Tula Krishna Mahto, Ajablal Mahto and Yogo Pandit assaulting Nago Pandit with fist and slaps, took L.T.I. over blank stamp paper by threatening him. Thereafter, Nato Pandit was released. During cross-examination at para-4, he had admitted that Yogo Pandit had already filed criminal case against his brother Shivjatan Pandit wherein Tula Krishna Mahto happens to be witness. Nago Pandit, informant of this case also happens to be an accused in that very case. He had further stated in para-5 that informant happens to be his cousin brother. He had shown the boundary of the place of occurrence as North his house, South Tula Krishna Mahto, East Tula Krishna Mahto, West road. In para-5 he had stated that he had seen the occurrence. First of all informant was assaulted by fist and slaps and then his L.T.I. was taken. At that very time, Jagdish Mahto, Baldeo Pandit, Ganesh Pandit, Shashi Kant Jha and others were present. 13. PW 6 is the informant himself who had stated that on the alleged date and time of occurrence while he was returning from Janta Chowk and reached near Shiv temple, he met with Tula Krishna Mahto, Ajablal Mahto and Yogo Pandit who caught hold him and began to assault and then dragged him to the darwaja of Tula Mahto where lantern was burning. Thereafter, they took L.T.I. over three blank stamp paper. At that very time Jagdish Mahto, Ganesh Pandit, Shashi Jha and Shivaji Mahto were present. Thereafter, accused persons released him. He rushed to P.S. and lodged the case. In para-3, he had denied the litigation having amongst the parties. In para-5, he had stated that he has got animosity with the accused. The accused persons without any cause had assaulted him, dragged him and took his L.T.I. He had further identified the P.O. as North Ramgulam, South Ramgulam again corrected house of Baijnath, East Tula Mahto, West Shiv temple and thereafter Tula Mahto. In para-5, he had stated that he has got animosity with the accused. The accused persons without any cause had assaulted him, dragged him and took his L.T.I. He had further identified the P.O. as North Ramgulam, South Ramgulam again corrected house of Baijnath, East Tula Mahto, West Shiv temple and thereafter Tula Mahto. In para-5, he had identified the another place where his L.T.I. was taken by identifying with following boundary North house of Baijnath Mahto, South house of Tula Mahto, East Thakurbari, West Thakurbari. Again corrected East land of Tula Mahto. 14. From the evidence as stated above, it is apparent that the informant PW 6 had himself bifurcated the occurrence in two parts by identifying the same with two different boundaries which none of the PWs have described. Admittedly, the I.O. has not been examined in this case and on account thereof, the P.O., on account of inconsistent evidence of the PWs is not at all found to be properly affix. There happens to be absolutely no bar in accepting the evidence of interested, inimical witness because of the fact that now a days the independent witnesses are not at all interested to come forward and depose the truth however the Court should be cautious while scrutinizing the evidence of interested, partisan witnesses. 15. As stated above, in the background of admitted status of the witnesses to be inimical and only those set of witnesses have come forward having inconsistency not only regarding place of occurrence rather over manner of occurrence, really makes the prosecution case unreliable. 16. Consequent thereupon, the successive judgments of the Courts below are set aside. Petition is allowed. Both the petitioners are on bail, hence are discharged from its liability. Petition allowed.