LAWS(JHAR)-2024-10-56

DUKRU SOY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On October 16, 2024
Dukru Soy Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. As per the prosecution case, at the time of occurrence the victim had accompanied one Jema Soy but said Jema Soy has been declared hostile. As per the prosecution case, one Motu Biruli was also present with Jema Soy but the prosecution has not produced said Motu Biruli as a witness. He submits that non production of these two persons as witness is a fatal blow to the prosecution case. He also submits that there is an allegation of commission of rape upon the victim by this appellant but surprisingly the doctor did not found any mark of assault on the body of the victim. He lastly submits that there was dispute between the family for which this appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.

(3.) Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel for the State, has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution case. Her statement is consistent. After the occurrence had taken place, the victim was examined by the doctor and the doctor found that sexual intercourse had taken place. He further submits that the statement of the victim under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded and the said statement was exhibited which corroborates the testimony of PW1. He lastly submits that it is not the quantity of the witness rather the quality of the witness which matters and there is nothing to suggest that there was an enmity between the parties for which the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.