deposed that the appellant assaulted her, dragged and locked her in a room by putting a lock outside the room and the appellant also torn the wearing apparels blouse etc. of the informant. P.W. 1 (Gangamuni Devi) stated that she saw the hot exchange of words between the appellant’s mother and the informant. She further stated that she did not find any injury on the informant. P.W.2 (Ganesh Prasad Saha) in his cross-examination, stated that this appellant dragged the informant and locked her in a room by putting lock outside the room. During examination-inChief, he stated that police came and rescued the informant. Thus P.W. 2 has tried to corroborate the statement given by the informant. But P.W. 6 (Prahlad Saha) had stated that he had seen that it was Prem Chandra Saha who had rescued the informant from the room. Thus, there is a major contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses. Ram Hansda (P.W-9), the I.O. of this case has not supported the deposition of P.W. 2 to the effect that the police came and rescued the informant from the room of the appellant. Thus I find that there is major discrepancies in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 2 and P.W. 6. Further, the case with regard to tearing of wearing apparels of the informant, blouse etc. which were allegedly torn by the appellant, not a single witness has stated about such tearing of the blouse of the informant. P.W. 6 in his deposition stated that the informant was wearing blouse but she never stated about the tearing of blouse. No apparels were also seized. So far as injury on the informant is concerned, I find that the informant was suffering from body pain only.
