JUDGMENT DHARNIDHAR JHA, J. Nine appellants were put on trial in Sessions Trial No.44 of 1992/25 of 2001 by the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur by being indicted of committing offences under Sections 307/149, 380 and 452 IPC. The judgment in the case was delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I, Vaishali at Hajipur on 20.12.2001 and while acquitting the appellants of charges under Sections 380 and 452 IPC they were held guilty of committing the offences under Section 307/149 IPC. The appellants were heard under Section 235 Cr.P.C and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellants have jointly preferred the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case as contained in fardbeyan of P.W.4 Jagdip Rai recorded in Sadar Hospital, Hajipur on 10.06.1990 at 1 P.M. was that while he was sleeping at his house at about 4 A.M. on 08.06.1990, all the nine appellants armed variously came there raising hulla. The informant woke up and he was assaulted by all of them so much so that he was badly injured and when his sister Rampari Devi (not examined) with P.W.1 Jai Mangal Rai, P.W.2 Sakaldip Rai and P.W.3 Bhikhari Rai attempted to intervene to save him, they were also assaulted. 3. There is no doubt in it that Ramparti Devi and the witnesses, like, P.Ws.1,2,3 and 4 were injured as appears from the evidence of P.W.5 Dr. Lalit Mohan Prasad, there is further no doubt that some of the injured were carrying injuries which could have been caused to them by sharp cutting weapons but that may not in itself be sufficient to hold the appellants guilty unless there was evidence indicating their individual participation on the basis of clear evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Incidentally, that evidence which could convey to any judicial mind that the appellants had either consciously or intentionally had given blows to the injured appears either lacking or doubtful. P.W.4, the informant of the case did state that the appellant Shivaji Rai had given a blow with a sharp cutting weapon to his brother Sakaldip Rai (P.W.2) and he himself had been assaulted with farsa by appellant Baleshwar Rai, but what appears from his evidence in cross-examination is that he was erasing the effect of that evidence by stating that he could not say as to who had given blows to him. Likewise, the evidence of P.W.1 Jai Mangal Rai was also of the same class when he stated that he could not say as to who had assaulted him or the other injured in the melee as appears from his cross-examination in paragraph-3. Similarly P.W.2 Sakaldip Rai, one of the injured, also stated that he did not say as to who had given blows to him. P.W.3 Bhikhari Rai, another injured was stating that when he reached at the place of occurrence, he was hit by a farsa and he fell unconscious and that he could not say as to who had given that particular blow. If this could be the evidence which could be as uncertain and indefinite with regard to individual participation of appellants, then the case has to result in acquittal of the accused persons. 4. After having perused the evidence of four eye witnesses who were all injured, the Court is of the opinion that it was not a case in which judgment of conviction would have been passed. 5. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. All the nine appellants are acquitted of the charges for which they had been found guilty of. All the nine appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.