JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties No. 2 to 5. 2. This application is directed against the against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2001 passed in G.R. No. 587 of 1988 (T.R. No. 133 of 2001) by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, whereby and where under, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 3. The allegation made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that in course of attending duty at Patherdih colliery when the petitioner reached the Ration shop of Jagat Pandey all of a sudden on being exhorted by Lakhan Pandey, Jagat Pandey and Arun caught hold of Anil Baran Thakur and Badyanath Pandey had given two blows on the nose of the petitioner with Gupti and Mahilal Pandey is also said to have assaulted to him. It is alleged that Nidhi Thakur was also assaulted with a Lathi by Mahilal Pandy. Based on the aforesaid allegation G.R. Case No. 587 of 1988 was instituted. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 147,148,149 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, whereupon cognizance was taken on 03.09.1988. After charge was framed for the offences punishable under Section 147,148,149 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial, six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 Alok Thakur has stated that when he was taking meal he heard the cry of alarm and when he came out he saw Sunil in injured condition and blood was oozing from his nose. He also stated that he came to know about the incident from others. P.W. 2 Kailash Thakur had stated about the assault committed upon the informant and Nidhi Thakur by the opposite parties. P.W. 3 Kisto Thakur had deposed that on the fateful day he and the petitioner were going to Patherdih and Bhojudih for duty. He had also stated that when they reached near the Ration Shop of Jagat, the petitioner was assaulted with Gupti on his nose by Baidyanath Pandey. He also stated about the assault committed by Mahilal upon Nidhi Thakur by Lathi. P.W. 4 Dr. He had also stated that when they reached near the Ration Shop of Jagat, the petitioner was assaulted with Gupti on his nose by Baidyanath Pandey. He also stated about the assault committed by Mahilal upon Nidhi Thakur by Lathi. P.W. 4 Dr. Baleshwar Prasad has examined the injured and found fracture of two fingers of Nidhi Thakur (PW 5) and cut injuries on the nose of Sunil (PW 6). P.W. 5 Nidhi Thkaur is an only eye witness who is the brother of the petitioner. He had seen his brother falling down and this witness was also assaulted by accused persons. P.W. 6 is the petitioner Anil Baran Thakur @ Sunil Thakur who is also the informant and he had also stated about the assault committed upon him by the accused persons and subsequently Nidhi Thakur came to the place of occurrence who was also assaulted by accused persons. 5. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 29.09.2001 had acquitted the opposite parties No. 2 to 5 from the charges levelled against them. 6. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are evidences on record to show culpability of opposite party No. 2 to 5 in taking part in assault, the informant as well as Nidhi Thakur. It has been stated that some of the witnesses are eye witnesses and merely because the witnesses are brothers that cannot be the sole basis for brushing aside their testimony. It has also been stated that the finding of the learned trial court that no X-ray was done and for that matter the Doctor had not given any advice for X-ray as the Doctor in his evidence has categorically not stated about advising X-ray to be done and thereafter opinion was to be given. Learned counsel therefore submits that since the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, opposite parties No. 2 to 5 should have been convicted instead of being acquitted on a very flimsy ground. 7. The judgment of the learned trial court seems to have concentrated itself on two aspects. The first aspect is the absence of independent witness although the incident is said to have taken place in a busy thorough fare and all the witnesses who have supported the persecution case are brothers. 7. The judgment of the learned trial court seems to have concentrated itself on two aspects. The first aspect is the absence of independent witness although the incident is said to have taken place in a busy thorough fare and all the witnesses who have supported the persecution case are brothers. The second aspect which has weighed in the mind of the learned trial court is that the Doctor did not give any advice for having an X-ray done and had given an opinion of fracture injury without any X-ray report. The finding of the learned trial court on both the counts are misconceived. Merely because the witnesses who have supported the occurrence are brothers cannot dissuade their testimony, as the same is not flooded with any concoction which would lead to disbelieving the prosecution story itself. The petitioner who happens to be the informant has very categorically supported his accusation made against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 and the manner in which they were assaulted by the said accused persons. P.W. 5 Nidhi Thakur was also an injured upon whom X-ray was done and he was opined to be having a fracture injury. The petitioner had also suffered severe injuries on his nose which corroborates the evidence of the petitioner of the petitioner's having been assaulted on his nose. P.W. 3 is also an eye witness to the occurrence and so is P.W. 2. Now a days independent witnesses who have seen the occurrence do not generally turn up out of fear or harassment. If such was the situation that in absence of any independent witness and the witnesses examined being related the prosecution case would be disbelieved, the same would lead to a hapless situation and the prosecution would not be able to secure conviction in any case. The learned trial court has not given any justifiable findings which can lead to a conclusion that indeed the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution are all interested witnesses and the opposite party No. 2 to 5 have been falsely implicated. The evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are consistent with respect to the manner of occurrence, the part played by opposite the party Nos. 2 to 5 and the place of occurrence, which has been duly corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor P.W. 4. 8. The evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are consistent with respect to the manner of occurrence, the part played by opposite the party Nos. 2 to 5 and the place of occurrence, which has been duly corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor P.W. 4. 8. The situation enumerated above would thus suggest that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of the witnesses in course of trial and therefore the judgment of acquittal dated 29.09.2001 deserves to be set aside. Accordingly in view of what has been stated, this application is allowed and the judgment and order dated 29.09.2001 passed in G.R. No. 587 of 1988 (T.R. No. 133 of 2001) by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, whereby and where under, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted from the charges levelled against them is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial to pass a fresh order in accordance with law based on the materials available on record after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 9. Let the Lower Court Record be returned back immediately.