1 2025:CGHC:56266-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.217 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District Korea (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Manish Kumar Panika @ Chhotau S/o Ramlakhan Panika Aged About 21 Years R/o Khadgawan, Chanviridand District Korea (C.G.) 2 - Shatrughan (Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 10.09.2025 3 - Ramnarayan, S/o Mohan Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Khadgawan , Andhivar, Police Station Khadgawan District Korea (C.G.) 4 - Sumariya Bai, W/o Late Ramlakhan Panika Aged About 68 Years R/o Khadgawan (Chanvaridand) Police Station Khadgawan, District Korea (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents No.1, 3 & 4 : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 19/11/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 08/10/2013, passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Koriya (Baikunthpur) (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.05/2013, whereby, the respondent No.1-Manish Kumar Panika @ Chhotau has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.11.20 17:30:40 +0530 2 under Sections 363, 366-A, 506, 368 and 376/34 of IPC, read with Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act, 1989”), respondent No.2-Shatrughan under Sections 368, 376/34 of IPC read with Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(xii) of the Act, 1989, respondent No.3-Ramnarayan under Sections 363, 366-A, 368 and 376/34 of IPC read with Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(xii) of the Act, 1989 and respondent No.4-Sumariya Bai, mother of the respondent No.1, under Sections 368 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(xii) of the Act, 1989. 2) The respondents have been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above on the allegation that on 07/10/2012 at around 6.30 P.M., when the prosecutrix went for answering the call of nature, she was abducted forcefully by respondent No.1-Manish Kumar Panika with the help of others and thereafter, he has committed sexual intercourse with her, who was recovered on 15/10/2012 from the house of respondent No.4-Sumariya Bai, the mother of the respondent No.1 and, based upon the alleged allegations, they have been charged as such, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3) During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent No.2-Shatrughan has died, therefore, the instant appeal is abated, insofar as the said respondent is concerned. 4) In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-1 and from perusal of her statement, it appears that on the said fateful day around 6.30 P.M., when she went to village Baigandand, in order to answer the call of nature, where, the 3 respondent No.1-Manish Kumar Panika of Village Andhivar came and caught hold of her and forcefully dragged her towards his village and took her to village Udhanapur by Marshal-Bolero vehicle and kept her in the house of one Lalla Panika for a night and on third day, when she was returning from the said village, they took lift from one Ramnarayan, the respondent No.3 herein in his car and when they were going to the village Podidih, it was turned towards one Sonu Shrivastava at the instance of respondent No.1-Manish Kumar Panika, where her maternal uncle Bhaiyalal and others, upon seeing them, asked her to come out from the car, but the respondent No.2-Shatrughan (Since deceased) has resisted her for doing so and the mother of the respondent No.1-Sumariya Bai, the respondent No.4 herein, has also restrained her as such. It appears further from her testimony that at their insistence, they went to the house of Up-Sarpanch-Shailesh Kumar, at his village Chanvaridand, where the respondent No.2- Shatrughan (Since deceased) has told her father to get the matter settled, but her father was not agreed for that, owing to which, he (deceased-Shatrughan) abused him while using filthy words in the name of the caste. She deposed further that the respondent No.1- Manish Kumar Panika took her to his house from Shailesh Kumar’s house, and committed sexual intercourse with her despite of her resistance. In her cross-examination, it appears that there was a love affair of her with the said respondent for the period of one year and, she had written a love letter (Ex.D-1) to him as well. It appears further from her testimony that when she was staying at Village Udhanapur, she could have fled away at the time of answering the call of nature, but, as reveals from para 13 of her cross-examination, she neither had 4 tried to fled away from the spot, nor any quarrel was taken place either with him or with his mother, Sumariya Bai, the respondent No.4. 5) It is to be seen further that after her recovery from the house of respondent No.4-Sumariya Bai on 15/10/2012, she was examined medically by Dr. Shalini Sharma (PW-4) and, according to her report (Ex.P-3) and the statement, no internal or external injury was, however, found on her body and, was rather found to be habitual in sexual intercourse. 6) What is, therefore, reflected from her testimony that she has not only visited several places along with the respondent No.1-Manish Kumar Panika, but has never tried to fled away, nor has lodged any report against the alleged act of him during this period, nor her father has even lodged any missing report, irrespective of the fact that she left the house on 07/10/2012 and, the said fact was fortified from the statement of Sub-Inspector, J.S. Kanwar, examined as PW-13. Therefore, it cannot be said that she was either abducted as such by him or was assisted by others for his alleged act, as alleged by the prosecutrix. She was, thus, a consenting party for the alleged incident. 7) It is now to be seen as to whether she was major at the relevant point of time or not, to give such a consent, and, in order to establish her minority, the Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P-12-C) was placed on record, where, her date of birth was shown to be as ‘10/07/1996’. The Headmaster of the concerned school, namely, Devnath was examined as PW-5 to prove the said document, but from perusal of his testimony, it appears that he has neither recorded her date of birth in the alleged Register, nor was aware that on what basis, it was shown as such, nor 5 any birth certificate or a declaration form was submitted by her parents. Even her father, namely, Shivcharan (PW-2) was not aware about the date of birth of his daughter and rather, it appears from his testimony that he recorded her age in the record of ‘Aanganbadi’ merely on presumption. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon the alleged Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P-12-C) in order to arrive at a conclusion that her date of birth is ‘10/07/1996’, as shown therein. 8) Pertinently to be noted here further that Dr. Shalini Sharma (PW-4), who examined her, has, however, not referred her to the Radiologist for ascertaining her actual age. In view of such circumstances and, in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, it is difficult to hold that she was minor at the relevant point of time and the trial Court, after taking note of these materials, has, therefore, rightly arrived at a conclusion that she was not minor at the relevant point of time and, we affirm the said finding. 9) Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/-/D/-D//- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane