JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 307 and 452 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 600/- where as the rest of the Appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 600/- in addition all the Appellants have been convicted under Section 452 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 1985 by the judgment dated 25.5.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.6.1983 the informant and the accused persons entered into an altercation over a minor matter and in course of which the Appellants are said to have thrown acid and injuring three of the witnesses namely P.W. 2, 4 and 5. 3. The prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses out of whom P.W. 2, 4 and 5 are the victims whereas P.W. 3 is a corroborative witness but family members of the informant, P.W. 6 is the doctor who examined the three injured and found simple injuries on two of them, P.W. 1 and 7 are the formal witnesses. 4. On behalf of the defence four witnesses were examined out of which D.W. 2 and 3 are the seizure list witnesses but have deposed on behalf of the defence. D.W.4 is another charge sheeted witness who has supported the version of the defence given in exhibit-B. The defence also produced certain documents to show that there was a counter version with regard to the same occurrence. D.W.1 is a doctor who had examined one of the injured. 5. From the facts of the case, it appears that after an altercation took place between the parties they also came to blows with each other and in course of which both parties indulged in throwing acid on each other. However, it appears that none of the witnesses have explained either injuries sustained by the accused or the counter version which in the facts of the case vital lacunae. More over, D.W.4 who was a charge sheeted witness supported the version of the defence. 6. However, it appears that none of the witnesses have explained either injuries sustained by the accused or the counter version which in the facts of the case vital lacunae. More over, D.W.4 who was a charge sheeted witness supported the version of the defence. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 223 of 1985 by the judgment dated 25.5.1995 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of their respective charges. The Appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.