JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. — This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd December, 1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir in Sessions Case No. 96/15 of 1990 wherein while acquitting all the accused persons numbering nine of the charge under Sections 148/307/149 of the I.P.C., he con¬victed accused-appellants, Agni Kumar Meher and Dalaganjan Meher for the offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. and sentenced them there under to undergo R.I. for one year each accused-appellant Gandharba under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and accused Balkrishna Rout @ Hadu and Pahilman Rout for the offence under Sections 324/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them thereunder to undergo R.I. for six months each. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, case of the prosecution is that on 2.6.1990 at about 11.30 A.M., while P.W.11, the Headmaster of Luhasinga U.P.School was going on a scooter being driven by P.W.9 to his School to receive his salary, on the way, the scooter developed some mechanical troubles, for which P.W.9 went to the village to fetch a plug. As there was some delay, P.W.11 went towards the village-Basti only to be assaulted by accused Agni Meher with a Tabli and Premananda Bag with a Lathi. Because of the assault he sustained injuries on his head and leg. In the meantime, while P.W.9 was returning on a bicycle from the house of Banamali Meher, accused Pahilman Rout caught hold of his cycle and Hadu @ Balakrushna Rout assaulted him. On the same date P.W.10, brother of P.W.9 lodged a written report before the O.I.C. of Patnagarh Police Station (P.W.12) which was treated as F.I.R. As the allegation contained in the F.I.R. revealed a cognizable case, P.W.12 registered it and took up investigation. In course of investigation he visited the spot, seized some material objects, sent the injured persons (P.Ws. 9 and 11) to the Hospital for medical examination and on 29.6.1990, in the eve of his transfer he made over charge of investigation of the case to the S.I., B.S.Mishra, who submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 148/307/149 of I.P.C. The case having been committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bolangir, it was transferred to the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir for disposal. 3. After going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir for disposal. 3. After going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bolangir framed charge under Sections 307/324/325 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. against all the nine accused persons, who faced trial before him. 4. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial of the alleged occurrence. The accused persons further took the plea that because of previous enmity between them and informant-party, the case had been falsely foisted against them and that in fact P.Ws. 9 and 11 fell down and sustained injuries, while moving on a scooter. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined twelve witnesses as against one by the defence. 5. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court found none of the accused persons guilty of the offence under Sections 148/307/149 of I.P.C., but found accused Agni Kumar Meher and Dolaganjan Meher guilty of the offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. and accused Balkrishna Rout @ Hadu, Pahilman Rout and Gandharba Bariha under Section 324 of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them thereunder as stated earlier. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order the five convicts have preferred the present appeal. 6. Mr. H.S.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants submits that even though there are materials on record to show that several persons were present at the place of alleged occur¬rence, the prosecution selected to examine only those witnesses who were inimically disposed of towards the appellants. As found from record, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 were witnesses to the seizure. P.W.3 was a post-occurrence witness. On being asked, P.W.11 told him that appellant Gandharba Bariha gave a Tangia blow on his head and accused Agni dealt a Lathi blow on his leg. P.W.9 also stated before him that while he was returning from Meherpada, appellant Pahilman Rout caught hold of him and Hadu @ Balkrushna Rout dealt a blow on him by a Tangia. During cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that there was a proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. between him and the appellants. He was also a witness against the appellants in another case. P.Ws. 5 and 10 were post-occurrence witnesses. It transpires from their evidence that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, they found Gandharba Bariha and Agni Meher running away from the spot. He was also a witness against the appellants in another case. P.Ws. 5 and 10 were post-occurrence witnesses. It transpires from their evidence that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, they found Gandharba Bariha and Agni Meher running away from the spot. During that time, accused Gandharba Bariha was armed with a Tangia and ac¬cused Agni with a Lathi (Sticks). It also transpires from their evidence that they were opp. parties in a proceeding under Sec¬tion 107 of Cr.P.C. instituted on behalf of the accused party. P.W.6, who claims to be an eye-witness to the occurrence is the brother of Devraj (P.W.9). He also admitted that in a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C., he was one of the opp. party-members, while the accused persons were petitioners. P.Ws. 7 is the Medi¬cal Officer who examined the injured persons P.W.8, who claims to be an eye witness to the assault on P.W.11 also admitted that he was a member of opposite party in a proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. against the accused persons. P.Ws. 9 and 11 are the injured persons. They were also in litigating terms with the accused persons. So, all the so-called material witnesses to the prosecution are inimically disposed of towards the appellants. F.I.R. reflect that Jagannath Meher and Gati Meher were eye witnesses to the occurrence, but their examination has been withheld. In such view of the matter it casts a doubt on the authenticity of prosecution case. 7. It transpires from the evidence of D.W.1 that on 2.6.1990 at about 11 A.M. to 12 noon, while he was returning towards village Dameipalli, he saw P.Ws. 9 and 11 coming in a scooter being driven by P.W.9. A while after, he saw them falling down from the scooter on a rough road for which both of them sustained injuries. The evidence of D.W.1 could not be shaken during cross examination. It transpires from the evidence of the doctor, P.W.7 that on 2.6.1990, at about 1.45 P.M., on police requisition, he examined Devraj Patel (P.W.9) and found one incised bleeding injury of size 4" x 2" x bone over posterior medical aspect of upper part of the left leg. On the same day, he also examined P.W.11 and found 5 injuries, out of which, three were bruises, one was abrasion and the other one was an incised injury. On the same day, he also examined P.W.11 and found 5 injuries, out of which, three were bruises, one was abrasion and the other one was an incised injury. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that almost all the injuries sustained by P.W.11 were found on his left side. So, the evidence of D.W.1 that both P.Ws. 9 and 11 sustained injuries because of fall from the scooter assumes importance. There is some force in this submission. Moreover, the occurrence took place in the year 1990. In the meantime, about more than 17 years have elapsed. 8. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence as passed by the trial Court are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge and they are discharged of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.