LOKESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATEMENT/Fardbeyan of one Kaushal Kishore at State Hospital, Sahebganj on 19.5.1993 has been made basis for lodging the F.I.R. which in brief is that at about 7.45 PM he was reading in his room, his younger brother Ravi Ranjan Kumar (P.W.1) was reading in another room, his mother (P.W.2) was cooking and both the grand fathers were in inner room. In the meantime, his villager Lokesh Kumar Shrivastava along with Deep Narain Paswan, Bindeshwari Paswan, Bira Paswan, Mahendra Paswan, Sakal Paswan and Mukhlal Paswas armed with Lathi, Bhala and Farsa came there and entered his house. Accused appellant no.1 Lokesh Kumar Srivastava exhorted to catch and kill the family members and blow his Farsa on head of his mother. When his younger brother Ravi Ranjan intervened to save he was assaulted by the same Farsa on his head also. Both the injured fell down, other accused appellants assaulted him by means of Lathi on his back. Accused appellant no.1 Lokesh Kumar Srivastava took away locket of gold from neck of his mother, two rings and two bangles of gold and fled from the place. On hue and cry, villager Satish Kumar and others came there but in that continuation Philips Radio and wrist watch were also taken away. Reason behind the incident was last year's incident of plucking of Litchi from informant's tree. Further it is claimed that a Torch was left by accused appellants.

(2.) THE trial is ended in conviction and sentence to the appellants for the offences under sections 323/149 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) WITNESSES are well-discussed is not doubted by learned amicus curiae appearing for the accused appellants rather his submission is that incident if any took place in the year 1993 there was counter version of the case also for the incident of the same time and place and land dispute was there in between the parties that is followed by accused appellants being first offenders that is further followed by no repetition of any crime of the similar nature or of any nature so, they should have been given benefit under the probation of Offenders Act.