IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.491 of 2023 In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3718 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2000 Thana- KHANPURA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Md. Nizamuddin, Son of Md. Mohiuddin, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, Ward No. 3, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur ... ... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Md. Najib Akhtar, Son Of Late Sayed Akhtar, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 3. Md. Nasim Akhtar, Son Of Late Sayed Akhtar, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 4. Md. Hussain, Son Of Late Sayed Akhtar, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 5. Md. Milan, Son Of Late Sayed Akhtar, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 6. Md. Umar Son Of Late Ahmad Hussain, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 7. Md. Munif, Son Of Late Ahmad Hussain, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 8. Md. Shamim Son Of Late Md. Monif, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 9. Md. Nasim Akhtar, Son Of Md. Monif, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 10. Md. Aalmin Son Of Late Md. Monif, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 11. Md. Ishrael Son Of Late Abdul Majid, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 12. Md. Faruqe Son Of Md. Israel, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 13. Md. Akhlak, Son Of Late Md. Israel, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 14. Md. Asho Son Of Md. Israel, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 15. Md. Alauddin Son Of Late Hefajat Hussain, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 16. Md. Hamiddullah Son Of Aabid Hussain, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 17. Md. Bablu Son Of Late Md. Lalbabu, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 18. Abdul Gaffar, Son Of Late Abdul Jalil Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 2/21 Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 19. Abdul Sattar Son Of Late Abdul Jalil, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 20. Md. Ejharul Son Of Late Md. Sahebjan, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 21. Md. Shoiab Son Of Md. Shakur Alam, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 22. Md. Raja Son Of Abdul Sattar, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur 23. Md. Ladle Son Of Late Abdul Kadir, Resident Of Village- Shirpur Gahar Tola, PS- Khanpur, Distt- Samastipur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP For the Pvt. Respondent : Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Date : 22-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 23 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The present appeal arises out of judgment of acquittal dated 07.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned judgment') passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial court') in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2002 (CIS No. 2139 of 2014) arising out of Khanpur P.S. Case No. 04 of 2000 whereby and whereunder Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 3/21 Respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6 to 11 and 13 to 23 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 337, 379, 147, 307, 323, 148, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), however Respondent No. 3, 5 and 12 were released on the condition of submitting a bond of peace and morality for one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Prosecution Case 3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant Md. Nizamuddin (appellant herein) recorded on 01.02.2000 at 12:30 PM in Sadar Hospital Samastipur by A.S.I. Ramakant Pathak Town Police Station Samastipur. He alleged that on 30.01.2000 at 09:00 PM, he had gone to the house of his maternal uncle Abdul Ajij situated in his village carrying a bag containing Rs. 3,000/- sent by his son and brother from Delhi, one woolen cloth sheet as also his three passbooks and advocate clerk's license. When he was inside the maternal uncle's home, he heard halla after some time, on hearing this informant went 100 gaj south to his maternal uncle's house where he saw that construction work of Md. Immamuddin's house was going on and his villagers, namely, 1. Sayeed Akhtar, 2. Najib Akhtar, 3. Nasim Akhtar, 4. Md. Hussain, 5. Md. Millan, 6. Md. Umar, 7. Md. Munnif, 8. Md. Shamim, 9. Md. Nasim, 10. Md. Aalmin, 11. Md. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 4/21 Ishrael, 12. Md. Faruqe, 13. Md. Akhlak, 14. Md. Asho, 15. Md. Alauddin, 16. Md. Hamiddullah, 17. Md. Bablu, 18. Abdul Gaffar, 19. Abdul Sattar, 20. Md. Ejharul, 21. Md. Shoiab, 22. Md. Raja and 23. Md. Ladle having lathi, bhala, gandasa reached there throwing stones and they took away 25 bag cement worth Rs. 3500/-, two bicycles, eight iron axe, four buckets, four spade and four blankets and also made the labourers fled from there. After some time, all the above named persons having lathi, bhala, gandasa reached there hurling abuses and Md. Ladle snatched silver ornament from the neck of Hamida Khatoon after entered into the house of Md. Abdul Ajij and on protest assaulted on her head by danda which caused bleeding injury and she become unconscious. Md. Ladle also assaulted Abdul Ajij by danda. Md. Akhlak caused injury on the right hand of Md. Mohiuddin by bhala and Md. Hussain also assaulted him by lathi as a result of which he became unconscious. When the informant forbade them, then Md. Ladle caught hold him and all the persons encircled him. On the saying of Sayeed Md. Umar hurled gandasa on his head which was defended by the informant from his right hand which caused injury on his head and bleeding injury on his head. Md. Hussain assaulted the informant by lathi causing fracture on his right hand. Informant alleged that Najib Akhtar, Hammidullah and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 5/21 Ejharul also assaulted him. Informant's watch worth Rs. 1300/- was taken away by Md. Nasim Akhtar and Informant's bag having documents was taken away by Md. Umar. Informant alleged that after causing assault the accused persons fled away to their respective houses. The reason behind the occurrence has been stated to be the old enmity and land dispute. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W. 4), Khanpur P.S. Case No. 04 of 2000 dated 05.02.2000 was registered under Sections 144, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 337, 447, 379, 504 of the I.P.C against 23 accused persons. 5. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 24 of 2000 dated 31.05.2000 has been filed showing the accused Sayeed Akhtar not sent-up for trial. Accordingly, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 144, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 337, 448, 379 and 504 of the I.P.C against 22 accused persons. After supply of police paper, the records were committed to the court of session on 26.09.2001 for trial. Before the Trial Court, charges were explained to the accused persons to which they denied accordingly charges under Sections 147, 307, 323, 148, 307, 325, 337 and 379 I.P.C. were framed against the accused persons by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 17.08.2006. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 6/21 6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and got exhibited various documentary evidence. The description of the prosecution witnesses and the list of documents exhibited on behalf of prosecution are provided hereunder for ready reference in a tabular form:- List of Prosecution Witnesses Prosecution witness No. Name of Witness Description 1. Md. Imammuddin present at the place of occurrence 2. Md. Jamaluddin reached at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla 3. Md. Masle Uddin chance witness 4. Md. Nijamuddin Informant 5. Md. Ishaak Hostile witness 6. Sami Ahmad Hostile witness 7. Ramswarath Ray Tendered 8. Md. Shamim reached at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla 9. Satyendra Kumar Sinha Investigating Officer 10. Dr. Arun Kumar Jha Identified the signature of treating doctor on injury report List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution:- Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ Attested by Exhibit-01 Fardbeyan PW-4 Exhibit-01/1 Signature of Station House Officer Singheswar Ravidas PW-9 Exhibit-2 Injury report of Hamida Khatun PW-10 Exhibit-02/1 Injury report of Md. Nizamuddin PW-10 Exhibit-02/2 Injury report of Md. Moiuddin PW-10 Exhibit-3 Certified copy of FIR of Khanpur Police Station No.- 55/10 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 7/21 7. Thereafter, statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they claimed their innocence and some documentary evidences were produced on behalf of the defence which have been exhibited and the same are in tabular form herein below:- List of Exhibits on behalf of defence:- Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit Proved by/ Attested by Exhibit-A Certified copy of judgment passed in Criminal Revision no.- 20/2000 Exhibit-B Certified copy of order dated 30.11.1999 passed by S.D.M. Samastipur in M.R. Case No.-1192/99 Exhibit-C Certified copy of Partition Suit No.- 271/99 Exhibit-D Certified copy of judgment passed in C.R. No.- 315/87, G.R. No.- 99/2000 Exhibit-E ordersheet of Complaint Petition No.- 882/97 Exhibit-F Certified copy of Complaint Petition No.- 882/97 Exhibit-G Certified copy of evidence given by Md. Umar in C.R No.- 882/977, T.R.- 321/01 Exhibit-H Certified copy of order passed in Criminal Revision No.- 48/03 Findings of the Learned Trial Court 8. The learned trial court having examined the evidences adduced by the prosecution found that the informant had impleaded 23 persons, out of them five accused had died therefore, the trial proceeded only against the other remaining accused persons. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 8/21 9. It has been held that from the evidences adduced by the prosecution and the defence it appeared that due to land dispute between both the parties for last several years, they were inimical to each other and on many occasions both the parties have lodged cases against each other. 10. The learned trial court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against accused the persons (1) Md. Nazib Akhtar (2) Nasim Akhtar (3) Md. Milan (4) Md. Shamim (5) Md. Nasim (6) Md. Aalmin (7) Md. Faruqe (8) Md. Asho (9) Md. Alauddin (10) Md. Bablu (11) Abdul Gaffar (12) Md. Ejharul (13) Md. Shoaib (14) Md. Raja and (15) Md Ladle. Since the prosecution could not to prove their guilt beyond all reasonable doubts, the learned trial court has acquitted them all of the charges. 11. So far as the accused (1) Md. Akhlak, (2) Md. Hussain and (3) Md. Umar are concerned, the learned trial court has held them guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC. The charges under Sections 337, 379, 307, 147, 148 and 324 IPC could not be established against these appellants. Therefore, they have been acquitted of those charges. The trial court held that on perusal of the evidences of the prosecution witnesses which are supported by the injury reports, it Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 9/21 is found that some of the injuries were of simple nature whereas some of them were grievous in nature. These injuries have been caused by the three accused, namely, (1) Md. Akhlak, (2) Md. Hussain and (3) Md. Umar therefore, the charges under Sections 323 and 325 IPC are proved beyond all the reasonable doubts against them. Submissions on behalf of the appellant 12. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, has assailed the impugned judgment of the learned trial court. It is submitted that the learned trial court has acquitted fifteen accused persons even as they have been specifically named by all the prosecution witnesses that they had entered into the house of the maternal uncle of the informant and had taken away 25 bags of LT cement costing Rs. 3500/- approximately, two Hero Royal bicycles and other articles. It is submitted that according to the prosecution case, Md. Ladle had snatched the silver made Hansuli from the neck of Hamida Khatoon, wife of Abdul Ajij and assaulted her on her head because of which she started bleeding. Md. Ladle had also assaulted Abdul Ajij by danda. Md Akhlak had given spear blow injury on the left hand of Mohiuddin and Md. Hussain also assaulted him by lathi as a result whereof he became unconscious. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 10/21 13. The informant has stated in the FIR that Md. Ladle caught hold of him by his waist and all other accused persons had surrounded him whereafter Sayeed Akhtar instigated them by saying that it is this person who is causing trouble to them by getting the cases lodged against them. On this, Md. Umar had assaulted the informant by lathi which injured the hand of the informant. He has stated that Md. Hussain had also assaulted him by a lathi causing fracture of his left hand. The informant has stated that the cause of occurrence is an old enmity on account of land dispute. 14. Learned Senior counsel submits that the learned trial court has erred in not only acquitting the fifteen accused persons but also by acquitting the three accused persons namely (1) Md. Akhlak, (2) Md. Hussain and (3) Md. Umar for the offences punishable under Section 307 IPC. The trial court has further shown favour to these accused persons by convicting them for the lesser offence under Sections 323 and 325 IPC and then after imposing a sentence of only one year imprisonment, the learned trial court gave the convicts benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. 15. It is submitted that the accused persons had also criminal antecedents but this has not been been taken into Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 11/21 consideration by the learned trial court therefore, the order of the learned trial court releasing the convicts under the Probation of Offenders Act is an illegal and arbitrary order which is liable to be set aside. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State have opposed the appeal. It is submitted that the learned trial court has appreciated each and every aspect of the evidence. It is the own case of the informant that the cause of occurrence is the prior enmity on account of land dispute between the parties. In such circumstances, false and over implication of the accused surfaced in course of trial. The learned trial court has, therefore, rightly acquitted the fifteen accused persons. 17. It is further submitted that so far as the three accused persons who have been convicted by the learned trial court are concerned, against them there was no material on the record that they had criminal antecedents. In such circumstance, the learned trial court has given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the three convicts, therefore, no fault may be found with the same. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 12/21 18. Learned counsel submits that both the parties are co- sharers. Jaan Ali and Gulam Rasul were two full brothers. Prosecution side is the descendant of Jaan Ali whereas the accused persons are the descendants of Gulam Ali. They are fighting over their claim in respect of some of the lands. It is submitted that in the First Information Report, the informant claimed that Hamida and Mohiuddin were also injured but in course of trial, neither Hamida nor Mohiuddin appeared to support the prosecution case. No plausible reason for their withholdment has been shown by the prosecution. Their injury reports have not been exhibited in course of trial. 19. Learned counsel submits that PW-5 and PW-6 have been declared hostile whereas PW-7 has been tendered by the prosecution. PW-9 is the I.O. of the case who has stated that after he reached the place of occurrence in village Shirpur Gahar, he found that the disputed land of Md. Immamuddin is approximately three kattha, in the western part of the land, Immamuddin was constructing a house, the construction materials were present there and plinth of the house was being constructed by brick and mud (mixture of soil and other items). At the south east corner of the house, there is a hut of Abdul Ajij in which the construction materials such as cement etc. were said to be stored and those were Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 13/21 looted away. He found the bricks and pieces of bricks etc. at the place of occurrence lying in scattered condition. This witness has stated that Md. Sayeed Akhtar who was posted as Dafadar in the police station was not found involved in the occurrence. 20. It is submitted that in his cross-examination, the I.O. (PW-9) has stated that at the place of occurrence, in past, action under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was taken. Abdul Ajij had told him that the construction of the house was taking place after the decree. It is submitted that the prosecution never proved any decree in their favour by any competent court of law. The defence has exhibited several documentary evidences to demonstrate that the land in question is a disputed land. There was no reason for the informant to be present at the place of occurrence. 21. The I.O. has further stated in paragraph '12' of his deposition that the occurrence is of 30.01.2000 but the fardbeyan of the informant (PW-4) has been recorded in the police station on 05.02.2000. He had not found any blood or blood soil at the place of occurrence, he had not seized any blood stained cloth. The I.O. has stated that 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding was initiated and one FIR being no. 10 of 1999 dated 23.11.1999 was registered. He has further stated in the case diary that the allegation of looting away the tagari, kudal, hasuli, etc. are not true as told by the witnesses. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 14/21 The independent witnesses Shami Alam, Anwarul Haque, Haur Ali, Ramswarath Ray and Md. Jabbar had given their statements but they are not mentioned in the boundary of the place of occurrence. 22. Learned counsel further submits that PWs-1,2,3 and 4 are said to have supported the prosecution case but they are highly inimical witnesses and their depositions are to be considered with all circumspection and care. They have admitted that the construction was taking place on plot no. 1292. It will appear that PW-1 is himself claiming one kattha three dhur in plot no. 1292, therefore, he is himself a party to the rival claim. No independent witness has come to depose. So far as PW-4 is concerned, he claims to have gone to the house of his maternal uncle Abdul Ajij where the occurrence took place. He claimed that after getting assault, he had become unconscious and his statement was recorded in hospital. This witness has proved his signature on the statement which is Exhibit-'1' but the ASI Ramakant Pathak who is said to have recorded the fardbeyan of the informant has not been examined in course of trial. Therefore, the whole fardbeyan of the informant has not been marked exhibit. It would appear that this PW-4 is an Advocate Clerk and he claimed himself in unconscious condition only to explain the delay. He has stated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 15/21 that when he became conscious, he found Abdul Ajij, Mohiuddin and Hamida Khatoon were in conscious condition. 23. It is further submitted that from the evidence of Dr. Arun Kumar Jha (PW-10), it would appear that it was Dr. B.K. Verma who had examined the injured persons. Dr. B.K. Verma had died, therefore, PW-10 has identified the writing and signature of Dr. B.K. Verma on the injury reports marked Exhibit '2', Exhibit '2/1' and Exhibit '2/2'. It is submitted that in absence of Dr. B.K. Verma, who had examined the injured persons, the defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the doctor who had occasion to notice the injuries. Further, the reports seem to have been based on the X-Rays but neither the X-Ray plate nor the X-Ray report have been proved. Rather it appears that the X-Ray was perhaps done in a private centre namely Modern Janch Ghar, Kashipur, Samastipur. The person who did the X-Ray work in the private centre has not deposed. 24. Learned counsel submits that the two injured namely Hamida and Mohiuddin have not deposed in course of trial. The occurrence is of the year 2000. By now, 26 years have gone and the parties are residing peacefully. The members of the family of Abdul Ajij, who is the maternal uncle of the informant, has chosen not to prefer any appeal against the impugned judgment and order. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 16/21 25. It is further submitted that this appeal is against acquittal, there cannot be any appeal against the benefit given to the accused persons under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the proviso to Section 372 CrPC to show that the victim’s appeal may be preferred only against the acquittal of the accused and conviction for a lesser offence or for award of lesser compensation. Consideration 26. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the private respondents and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also on perusal of the records, we find that in this case Md. Nijamuddin (PW-4) is the informant of the case whose fardbeyan is said to have been recorded by ASI Ramakant Pathak (not examined) on 01.02.2000 at 12:30 in Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. This is regarding the occurrence which took place on 31.01.2000 at about 9:00 AM, the place of occurrence is the disputed land bearing plot no. 1292 on which Md. Imamuddin, Son of Late Sirajuddin was constructing a house. In his fardbeyan, the informant (PW-4) has named 23 persons as accused and alleged that all of them came armed with lathi, bhala and gandasa and they were throwing bricks and stones. They reached at the place of occurrence and from there they entered into the darwaja Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 17/21 of Abdul Aziz and looted away the construction materials. The I.O. (PW-9) has stated that near the construction site there was a hut of Abdul Aziz in which the construction materials were said to have been stored but in course of investigation, the witnesses told him that the allegations of looting away all those materials are not true. 27. The informant (PW-4) has stated that Hamida Khatoon was assaulted on her head by Md. Ladle and she was bleeding from her head but the I.O. (PW-9) did not find any blood stained soil at the place of occurrence. According to the informant, apart from him Hamida Khatoon and Md. Mohiuddin were the two other injured of the occurrence but it is found that neither Hamida Khatoon nor Md. Mohiuddin have turned up to depose in course of trial. 28. This Court further finds that PW-5 and PW6, namely Md. Ishaque and Shami Ahmed who were named as independent witnesses by the I.O. (PW-9) have not supported the prosecution case as they have turned hostile. The another independent witness Ramswarath Rai (PW-7) has been tendered by the prosecution. 29. This Court further finds that so far as Md. Imamuddin (PW-1), Md. Jamaluddin (PW-2) and Md. Masleuddin (PW-3) are concerned, they are highly inimical witnesses. In course of his deposition, PW-1 has claimed that plot no. 1292 is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 18/21 measuring area two kattha six dhur of which one kattha three dhur would belong to him. He has stated that both the parties belong to the same ancestor. PW-1 is the descendant of Jaan Ali whereas the defendants are the descendants of Gulam Rasool. This Court finds that PW-2 is the full brother of the informant (PW-4). Imamuddin is the uncle of PW-2. He has stated that he was in hospital when the statement of Nijamuddin was recorded but his statement was not recorded. PW-2 has stated that his statement was recorded after 21-25 days and along with him, the statement of Imamuddin, Masleuddin, Samiuddin and others were recorded. It is, thus, evident that PW-2 has been examined in course of examination after a lapse of substantial period of 21-25 days. Similarly, Masleuddin (PW-3) has also been examined after 21-25 days. They are closely related to the prosecution side. Therefore, it would not be safe to convict all the accused persons who were facing charges on the basis of their general and omnibus allegations. 30. This Court, therefore, finds that the learned trial court has not committed any error in acquitting fifteen named accused persons who were facing charges. 31. So far as the conviction of the other three accused under Sections 323 and 325 IPC are concerned, the contention of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 19/21 learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that they were to be convicted under Section 307 IPC but we are of the considered opinion that in the nature of occurrence and the manner in which it is said to have taken place over construction of a house on a disputed piece of land, the ingredients of Section 307 IPC would not be made out. We are not making any comment on the conviction under Sections 323 and 325 IPC as the convicts are not before us in appeal. The only matter related to the conviction of the three accused under Sections 323 and 325 IPC is with regard to the lesser sentencing and benefit given to the convicts under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. We are of the considered opinion that under proviso to Section 372 CrPC, no appeal would lie for a lesser sentencing and for giving benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders act to the convicts. 32. In our considered opinion, we would not go into that aspect of the matter by extending the scope of the appeal beyond the statutory sanction. We are dealing with an appeal against acquittal and the principles governing the appeals against acquittal are well settled by judicial pronouncements on the subject. In the case of H.D. Sundara and Others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 20/21 reiterated the principles which we quote hereunder for a ready reference:- “8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment1 rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC can be summarised as follows: 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 1. State of Karnataka v. H.K. Mariyappa, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.491 of 2023 dt.22-06-2026 21/21 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 33. In result, we find no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. 34. Let a copy of this judgment together with the trial court’s records be sent down to the learned trial court immediately. anjali/Rishi- (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Kumar Manish, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 25.06.2026 Transmission Date 25.06.2026