Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The appellants suffered conviction under Sections 427, 353 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code for which they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a term of one year on each count. They were also convicted under Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years. 2. The police case was registered at Roh Police Station on behest of Parmeshwar Mahto (P.W. 1) alleging that on 1st November, 1981, while he along with other officials of Public Health Engineering Department was returning after repair of machine, to Nawadah on a tractor, they were intercepted by the appellants who dealt blows on them and also pelted brick-bats and stones. Accusation about damaging the tractor was also attributed to them. After the police was set in motion, investigation commenced during which police recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, secured injury report from the doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid chargesheet before the court. In the eventual trial that commenced against the appellants, the State examined altogether seven witnesses including the Doctor. The defence pleaded by the appellants was of innocence. However, the trial court on appreciation of evidence, while negativing contentions raised at bar on behalf of the appellants, recorded verdict of guilt and sentenced them in the manner stated above which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. Contentions raised at bar on behalf of the appellants was that though the appellants were found guilty also under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, the evidences on record fail to suggest that Parmeshwar Mahton and his other companions allegedly sustained injuries on their persons while discharging their official duties and also to deter them in discharge of their duty, as it would appear from the evidences that they allegedly sustained injuries while returning from duty. The other argument canvassed at bar was that though the appellants suffered conviction also under Sections 323, 457 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the evidence of the witnesses, who claimed to be the victims of the incident, fail to make out a good case to saddle the appellants on any of these counts. 4. The other argument canvassed at bar was that though the appellants suffered conviction also under Sections 323, 457 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the evidence of the witnesses, who claimed to be the victims of the incident, fail to make out a good case to saddle the appellants on any of these counts. 4. Evidences of the witnesses were most cryptic in the sense that they were simply narrating before the court about victims sustaining injuries, while returning after repair of the machine, without there being any implicit evidence as to whether they were further going to attend their duty and hence, in that view of the matter, conviction of the appellants on that count did not sound well. In the same fashion it would appear that evidence of witnesses were not implicit as to who had sustained injuries on their persons either by fists and slaps or pelting of stones. Parmeshwar Mahto though claimed to have identified six of them, who intercepted them, made candid admission that he could not know about the overt act committed by individual appellant, and also that who sustained injuries at the hands of an individual appellant. Evidence of N.C. Gupta, P.W. 2, was not better than of Parmeshwar Mahto, P.W. 1, simply claimed to identify four persons, without making any attribution against them. He did not know as to whether any of the appellants dealt blows on him. Attention of this witness was also drawn by the State to impeach his credibility. Sohan Singh, P.W. 3 claims to have identified only Rajendra Lal. He would make candid admission that he did disclose the names of the assailants even to the police. Awadhesh Kumar Jha, P.W. 4, claimed to have identified only Janardan Sah. 5. While evaluating evidences one fact can not be lost sight of that all the witnesses would make narrations before the trial court that after they were returning to Nawadah on a tractor, a big procession comprising of about five hundred/one thousand persons was proceeding on the road and in that melee it was quite unlikely for the witnesses to identify the assailants or even those who allegedly damaged the tractor. My attention has also been drawn to the fact that the prosecution was launched against the appellants in the year 1981 about two decades back for which they have suffered trauma of protracted prosecution for such a long period. 6. Having given my consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidences placed on the record, I find that the finding recorded by trial court holding the appellants guilty was not based on proper evaluation of evidences and, in that view of the matter, by giving benefit of doubt while upsetting the finding recorded by trial court, they are requitted of the charges. This appeal is allowed. They also stand discharged from the liability of their bail-bonds.