JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 have been convicted under Section 323 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year where as Appellant No. 2 has been convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to a period of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- out of which 1000/-was to be given to the injured Mauna Ram failing which a further imprisonment of 3 months by the learned 2nd Sessions Judge, Bhabua in Sessions Trial No. 538/1995 of 1992 by the judgment dated 24.4.1995. Further the Appellant No. 1 and 3 have been given the benefit of Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure and directed to execute a bond of Rs. 10,000/- keeping in view their tender age. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 3.4.1991 at about 9 a.m. one Ramdhani Ram was assaulted by Gulab Chauhan with a Bhala on account of which he sustained injury and fell down where after the rest of the accused persons assaulted him with lathi. 3. The defence case was that there was a counter version of this occurrence instituted by one Nanda Chauhan and others against the informant of this case. Initially the case was charged under Section 304/34 I.P.C. but the Appellants were acquitted of the charges and convicted as mentioned above. 4. The prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses out of whom P.W. 6 is the informant, P.W. 7 is the injured, P.W. 1, 2 and 4 other eyewitnesses, P.W. 3 and 5 are formal witnesses, P.W. 8 is the doctor who examined Ramdhani Ram and Manna Ram, P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer. 5. The defence examined 3 witnesses and also brought the injury reports of one Shivpujan Chauhan whereas D.W. 2 was the doctor who had examined the said Shivpujan Ram, D.W. 3 is a witness who proves a sanha diary to demonstrate that there was a counter version with regard to the same occurrence. 6. 5. The defence examined 3 witnesses and also brought the injury reports of one Shivpujan Chauhan whereas D.W. 2 was the doctor who had examined the said Shivpujan Ram, D.W. 3 is a witness who proves a sanha diary to demonstrate that there was a counter version with regard to the same occurrence. 6. On going through the evidence of witnesses, I find that P.W. 1 does not appear to be an eye-witness since he has given contradictory statements whereas none of the witnesses have explained the injuries of the defence as also the prosecution case was also substantially disbelieved by the Trial Court on the basis of which accused Gulab Chauhan against whom there was specific allegation of giving fatal blow on the injured Ramdhani Ram was acquitted. 7. Admittedly the occurrence had taken place on account of a minor matter and in the course of the same both the parties clashed between themselves. In the manner described by the prosecution, it would be difficult for any person to have conclusively seen which of the accused person had assaulted whom and at which part. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants by the learned 2nd Sessions Judge, Bhabua by the judgment dated 24.4.1995 in Sessions Trial No. 538/1995 of 1992 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The Appellants are discharged for the liabilities from their respective bail bonds.