Hearsay evidence and interested witness testimony without independent corroboration cannot sustain a conviction in land dispute cases.

The appellant (informant) challenged the judgment dated 07.07.2022 by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, which acquitted 15 respondents and convicted 3 others (Md. Akhlak, Md. Hussain, and Md. Umar) for lesser offenses under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC instead of Section 307.

The incident occurred on 30.01.2000 regarding a land dispute involving plot no. 1292.

The informant alleged that 23 persons armed with weapons assaulted him and others, and looted construction materials.

The Investigation Officer (PW-9) found no blood at the scene and independent witnesses turned hostile.

The trial court granted the convicted respondents the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

1. Whether the acquittal of the 15 respondents and the refusal to convict the remaining three under Section 307 IPC was legally sustainable given the evidence of enmity and injury.

2. Whether an appeal by a victim is maintainable against the grant of probation or for "lesser sentencing" under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

The court applied the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, which limits a victim's right to appeal to cases of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offense, or inadequate compensation.

It strictly followed the principles for appellate interference in acquittals as reiterated in H.D. Sundara and Others v. State of Karnataka (2023), emphasizing that if the trial court’s view is a "possible view," the appellate court cannot overturn it simply because another view exists.

The court also considered Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 regarding the release of offenders on personal bonds.

The High Court observed that the prosecution’s case was weakened by the non-examination of material injured witnesses (Hamida Khatoon and Md. Mohiuddin) and the late recording of witness statements (21-25 days delay).

The Court noted that the witnesses (PW-1 to PW-4) were "highly inimical" due to a long-standing land dispute, making general and omnibus allegations unreliable for convicting all accused.

Regarding Section 307 IPC, the Court found the ingredients missing as the occurrence arose from a sudden dispute over construction on contested land.

Crucially, the Court held that the victim’s appeal under Section 372 CrPC does not extend to challenging "lesser sentencing" or the grant of probation, as these do not fall within the categories of acquittal or conviction for a "lesser offense" in the context of the sentence duration itself.

The court affirmed the acquittal of the 15 respondents due to lack of independent corroboration and the hostility of witnesses.

It further held that no appeal lies at the instance of a victim against the grant of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act or for a mere increase in the sentence length.

The conviction of the three respondents under Sections 323 and 325 IPC and their release on probation remained undisturbed.