It is submitted that the case of the prosecution, at best, is based upon the sole testimony of PW-2, the informant Budesh Hansda. PW-3, his brother Amit Hansda who had allegedly accompanied the informant and his grandfather to the place of occurrence, has not been found to be competent witness by the Court and was only aged 10 years at the time of deposition. PW-2 himself was less than 9 years of age at the time of occurrence and about 11 years on the date of his deposition i.e. 15.12.2011. His evidence read in entirety, shows major contradiction and improvement. Learned counsel has, in particular, pointed out to the statements of PW-2 at paragraph-3 which indicates that Ox were introduced into the field of the informant by the son of Lakhan Hansda where ladyfinger was planted. This is inconsistent from the fardbeyan story and a major improvement. At paragraph-4, he states that number of villagers had seen the occurrence from a distance, but there are no prosecution eyewitness to support it. In his cross-examination, he states at paragraph-7 that he is a student of Class-VI. There is major contradiction in his statement at paragraph-9 and 10 where he speaks about the time of occurrence as 9.00 am whereas in the fardbeyan, the time of occurrence is 11.00 am. At paragraph-10, his statement further creates doubt as according to him, his grandfather Sukhdeo Hansda had reached on his own at 9.00 am at the place of occurrence and the accused Lakhan Hansda had also reached there at 9.00 am and the occurrence occurred at 9.00 am. He further states that he along with Amit had come back. At paragraph-11, he denies that there was any altercation before the occurrence. At paragraph12, he further states that he had not gone back to the field again and had reported about the occurrence to his Aunt. At paragraph-13, he states that he along with Munda Badakuwa had gone to the police station at 4.00 pm where the police made inquiries from him and then recorded it. However, the fardbeyan shows that it was recorded at his house in village Durita. However, he did not remember who wrote it and that what was written over it, he had not read it, nor anyone had read it over to him. He denies that the accused Lakhan Hansda had indulged in 'Marpit' (assault) with his grandfather and the incidence did not occur in the field where ladyfinger was planted. These inconsistencies and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witness no. 2, the sole eyewitness who is also the informant, leaves serious dent to the entire prosecution case as there are no other witness who claim himself to be an eyewitness to the occurrence.
