1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 61 of 2016 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Charcha, District – Korea (CG) ... Appellant versus Gorelal Kurre S/o Somarsay Kurre, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Jaliyadand, Police Station Baikunthpur, District - Korea (CG) ---- Respondent For Appellant/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy.Government Advocate For Respondent : Ms.Anshu Ratre, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 10.12.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 04.09.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Baikunthpur, District Korea(CG) in Sessions Trial No.63/2013, SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.12.11 10:37:21 +0530 2 whereby, the respondent- Gorelal Kurre has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC, read with Section 5(l/6) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that a written report (Ex.P-3) was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 12.04.2013 before the Police Station, Charcha of District Korea, alleging inter alia that, 10-12 days prior, i.e. 30.03.2013 in the evening at 6.00 pm, his daughter was allured by the respondent on the pretext of marriage and took her to some unknown place, who returned on 12.04.2013 and informed that she was taken by him by Train to Anuppur and then Nasik via Katni and during the said period, she was sexually assaulted by him. Based upon the alleged information, the respondent was charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and, it was deposed by her that on the date of incident at 6.00 pm, when she went to answer the call of nature, her hand was caught hold by the respondent and while, showing knife and, that by threatening to kill, took her forcefully along with his cousin, namely, Pintu by his motorcycle to Charcha Railway Station from the village Jagatpur and thereafter, he took her to Anuppur and then Nasik via Katni and from there, he took her to village Silvas to his sister’s house at Jamalpara, where she stayed along with him for a week. It was deposed further that during the said period, the respondent has committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully. Although, it was stated 3 by her, as such, but when she returned on her own on 12.04.2013, as evident by the Baramadagi Panchanama (Ex.P-2), it was, however, stated by her that she was taken away by the respondent forcefully, while alluring on the pretext of marriage, who visited along with her for 10-12 days on different places and committed sexual intercourse with her. It, thus, appears that she has not stated upon her returning that she was taken away by him by threatening to kill with the aid of knife, nor the alleged of her version is found to be reflected from her statement (Ex.D-1) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., nor even was revealed from her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Her statement that she was taken away by the respondent, while threatening her as such, therefore, cannot be relied upon. 4. It is to be seen further that she was examined by Dr. Madhurima Painkra (PW-5), who, vide her report (Ex.P-5), has, however, not found any kind of injury, either internal or external, on her body, which would, thus, shows that she was with him and returned on 12.04.2013 on her own. The statement of her mother (PW-3) would also reveal the fact that her daughter/prosecutrix wanted to live with the respondent. The alleged of her relation, thus, appears to have been made on her own. 5. In order to establish her minority, the prosecution has produced certain documents, like marks sheet-cum-certificate (‘Article A-1’) and copy of Dakhil Kharij Register (‘Article A/2-C’), on record, that her date of birth is “13.09.1998”. A bare perusal of those documents, would, however, show that it was of her Class 3rd standard. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it as even the person who made those entries 4 was not examined. That apart, father of the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-2, was, however, unable to state the date of birth of his children and it reveals further from his testimony that he got the date of births of his children registered in the ‘Kotwari Register,’ but the same was also not placed on record, so as to hold that her date of birth is 13.09.1998. Pertinently, to be noted here further at this juncture that Dr. Madhurima Painkra (PW-5), who examined her medically, had referred for the radiology test in order to determine her age, but even the same has not been placed on record. Therefore, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, it cannot be said that she was minor on the said fateful day, i.e. on 30.03.2013. 6. As observed herein-above from the testimony of the prosecutrix that she has visited to several places along with the respondent without raising any objection at any point of time during the considerable period of 10-12 days, would, thus, shows that she was, in fact, a consenting party with regard to the alleged relation of her with the respondent and, the trial Court has, thus, not committed any illegality to hold as such. 7. In view of the above, the appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita