infirmities crept during course of trial and passed the impugned judgment in complete ignorance of criminal jurisprudence. Moreover, there are discrepancies regarding the occurrence and the presence of individuals at the place of occurrence as there are no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. PW-6 being mother of the informant has also not seen the occurrence and in her cross-examination admitted that her daughter later told her that she had gone to the house of maternal grandmother and she is mere hearsay witness, another important witness (PW-7) who is the informant of the case has also not seen the occurrence and on basis of story told by her younger daughter he made the appellant accused in the present case, therefore, he is also a hearsay witness and there are no independent witnesses of the alleged occurrence and all the witnesses presented are interested witnesses, thereby raising doubts regarding the credibility and impartiality of their testimonies. It is crystal clear that PW-5 (informant), PW-6 (mother of the victim), PW-7 Babita Kumari, (younger sister of the victim), PW-8 (victim) has also stated in her cross-examination that the victim had gone voluntarily to the maternal grandmother’s house at that day.
