ORDER This appeal is directed against judgment dated 18-3-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Durg in Sessions Trial No. 161/2003. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Lukesh alias Lokesh has been convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 376(1) IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to further undergo R. I. for two months. For each of the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to further undergo R. I. for two months. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, the sentences awarded to the appellant are directed to run separately. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under : On 31-1-2003, at about 7 p. m., prosecutrix Kumari Kirtanbai (PW-3) had gone to attend the call of nature. On her non-return to home, her father Makhanlal (PW-13) made a search for her, but she was not found. Villagers were informed about the incident. The appellant had also gone out of his house on the same day at about 5 p.m. Boys of the village told that the appellant had gone to the house of the prosecutrix (PW-3) at about 5:30 p.m. On this, Makhanlal (PW-13) lodged First Information Report (Ex. P-8) in Police Station Gurur. During investigation, when it was come to know that the appellant and the prosecutrix (PW-3) were present in Secunderabad (Andhra Pradesh), Head Constable Shishupal Singh (PW-11), accompanied by witnesses Rajlal and Shankarlal (PW-7) went to Secunderabad and found the prosecutrix (PW-3) with the appellant in a hut. Recovery Panchnama (Ex. P-6) was prepared at the spot. After recording statement of the prosecutrix (PW-3), she and the appellant were brought to Police Station Gurur. The prosecutrix (PW-3) was handed over to her father on Supurdnama. In further investigation, spot-map was prepared vide Ex. P-9. On being produced by Makhanlal (PW-13), school certificate, in which date of birth of the prosecutrix (PW-3) was mentioned as 2-2-1985, was seized vide Ex. P-10. Cotton petticoat of the prosecutrix (PW-3) was seized. The prosecutrix (PW-3) was sent for medical examination. Dr. Smt. Shashi Cladius (PW-12) examined the prosecutrix (PW-3) and gave her report (Ex. P-9. On being produced by Makhanlal (PW-13), school certificate, in which date of birth of the prosecutrix (PW-3) was mentioned as 2-2-1985, was seized vide Ex. P-10. Cotton petticoat of the prosecutrix (PW-3) was seized. The prosecutrix (PW-3) was sent for medical examination. Dr. Smt. Shashi Cladius (PW-12) examined the prosecutrix (PW-3) and gave her report (Ex. P-21), in which, she did not find any injury on the body of the prosecutrix. Her hymen is old torn. No injury or swelling or redness or blood seen in the vagina. Cervix is normal. She is habituated to intercourse. The appellant was sent to Primary Health Centre, Gurur for medical examination. Underwear of the appellant was seized before witnesses vide Ex. P-7. During investigation, statements of witnesses Makhanlal (PW-13). Preminbai, Ramswaroop (PW-2), Kamal Narayan (PW-1), Khorbahara (PW-5), Gangaram (PW-6), Pannalal and Pyarelal. Another spot-map was also prepared by Patwari. Seized underwear, petticoat, vaginal slide of the prosecutrix (PW-3) and hair of private part (penis) of the appellant were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical examination. Report (Ex. P-18) was received therefrom. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod, who committed the case to the Court of Session at Durg, from where it was received on transfer by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 3. Shri N. S. Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the age of prosecutrix Kirtanbai was above 18 years on the date of incident. He further argued that the conclusion reached by the trial Court is perverse. The evidence of the prosecutrix is full of inconsistences and contradictions, which destroys the root and foundation of the prosecution case. The prosecutrix left her home willingly. The prosecutrix had several opportunities to run away, but she did not do so. It appears that the prosecutrix is consenting party. Therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted under Sections 376(1) and 366 IPC. On the date of incident, the age of the prosecutrix was above 18 years and she left her parental house willingly, therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 363 IPC also. The finding of the trial Court is perverse and deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. On the date of incident, the age of the prosecutrix was above 18 years and she left her parental house willingly, therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 363 IPC also. The finding of the trial Court is perverse and deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. Learned counsel placed reliance on Alamelu and another v. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 688 : ( AIR 2011 SC 715 ). 4. Smt. Madhunisha Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Having heard rival contentions of the parties, I have perused the record of Sessions Trial No. 161/2003. 6. Now, I shall examine whether on the date of incident, the age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years? 7. Kirtanbai (PW-3) deposed that she had studied upto class 8 and her date of birth is 2-2-1985. Makhanlal (PW-13) deposed that date of birth of his daughter (prosecutrix Kirtanbai) is 2-2-1985. Sub-Inspector Rajeev Sharma (PW-8) deposed that he seized certificate of Middle School Examination, 1999, which is marked as Article and he also seized Dakhil Kharij, whose copy is Ex. P-20C. 8. Punuram Gurupanch (PW-10) deposed that prosecutrix Kirtanbai had studied in his school. Article is a certificate and Ex. P-20C is a copy of Dakhil Kharij Panji. According to Article and Dakhil Kharij Panji (Ex. P-20 and P-20C), the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 2-2-1985. 9. In Harpal Singh and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361 , the Honble Supreme Court observed that the entry was made by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duties, that it is therefore clearly admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine its author. From whatever angle we view the evidence. 10. Prosecutrix Kirtanbai (PW-3) studied in Middle School Narbada, which is a Government School and Dakhil Kharij Panji was proved by Headmaster of that school and Article is a certificate (mark-sheet), which is also admissible under Section 34/35 of the Evidence Act. Perusal of Article and Ex. P-20C shows that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 2-2-1985. 10. Prosecutrix Kirtanbai (PW-3) studied in Middle School Narbada, which is a Government School and Dakhil Kharij Panji was proved by Headmaster of that school and Article is a certificate (mark-sheet), which is also admissible under Section 34/35 of the Evidence Act. Perusal of Article and Ex. P-20C shows that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 2-2-1985. According to the prosecution, the date of incident is 31-1-2003. On that date, the prosecutrix was 17 years 11 months and 29 days old. It appears that on the date of incident, the age of the prosecutrix was 18 years. 11. Kirtanbai (P.W. 3) deposed that on 31-1-2003, at about 6.30 p.m. she had gone to attend the call of nature. At that time, the appellant came there, caught her hand, threatened her and having caught her hand, he took her to village Kaneri. There, he was asked by some villagers that where was he taking her? He replied that he was taking her to village Barhi, where his house was situated. Thereafter, he took her to bus stand Dhamtari. They stayed in the bus. He committed sexual intercourse with her in the bus itself. She further deposed that on the next morning, at about 7 a.m. he took her to Durg by bus. When she requested him that her Phoopha (uncle) resides there and she may be taken to him, he beat on her cheek. Thereafter, he took her from Durg to Nagpur and thereafter Hyderabad. At Hyderabad, he deliberately put vermillion on the top of her head in the temple of Lord Shiva. She further deposed that he kept her at Hyderabad for four days and committed sexual intercourse with her. 12. Makhanlal (P.W. 13) deposed that when he returned home in the evening, his daughter (prosecutrix Kirtanbai) had not returned home. He searched her in the nearby locality. He searched her along with villagers and when she was not traceable, he lodged a report. 13. Raju (P.W. 14) deposed that prosecutrix Kirtanbai is daughter of his brother-in-law (Sala). Makhanlal (P.W. 13) came to him and told that prosecutrix Kirtanbai was not at home. They tried to search her out in the nearby locality. After three days, the appellant had telephoned to Dr. Santram and told him that they were present at Hyderabad. 14. 13. Raju (P.W. 14) deposed that prosecutrix Kirtanbai is daughter of his brother-in-law (Sala). Makhanlal (P.W. 13) came to him and told that prosecutrix Kirtanbai was not at home. They tried to search her out in the nearby locality. After three days, the appellant had telephoned to Dr. Santram and told him that they were present at Hyderabad. 14. Rajiv Sharma (P.W. 8) deposed that Makhanlal (P.W. 13) lodged a report against the appellant and he registered Crime No. 31/2003 against the appellant vide Ex. P-8. Shishupal Singh (P.W. 11) deposed that prosecutrix Kirtanbai was recovered from hut of the appellant at Secunderabad. Recovery memo (Ex.P-6) was prepared and the prosecutrix was handed over to her father. 15. Looking to the above evidence, it appears that prosecutrix Kirtanbai was accompanying the appellant and was recovered from the appellant at his hut at Secunderabad. 16. Now, I shall examine whether the appellant had taken the prosecutrix away enticing and threatening her ? 17. Kirtanbai (P.W. 3) deposed that it is true that the appellant had met her on 26-1-2003. He had deliberately stopped and talked her. She had not told anything about the incident of 26-1-2003 to any of her family members. Many passengers were sitting in Kaneri to Dhamtari bus. In Dhamtari bus, the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her. At that time, driver and conductor of the bus were not present in the bus. She further deposed that it is true that they were sitting on one seat of the bus. It is also true that she was sitting and the appellant was sleeping. She further deposed that in the next morning, they had woken up and after washing hands and mouth, the appellant had taken tea. Thereafter, they went to Durg. She had not narrated anything about the incident in the hotel. 18. Kirtanbai (P.W. 3) deposed that while reaching Hyderabad, she had not narrated anything in the train. It is true that at that time, when she had gone out to attend the call of nature, she had left a letter (Ex. D-2) in the name of her father. She further deposed that it is true that Jagdish, Nandu, Shriram and Shivkumar were also working at Hyderabad and Pardeshiram was also residing there. She further deposed that it is true that the appellant was engaged in doing work as a labourer. D-2) in the name of her father. She further deposed that it is true that Jagdish, Nandu, Shriram and Shivkumar were also working at Hyderabad and Pardeshiram was also residing there. She further deposed that it is true that the appellant was engaged in doing work as a labourer. She was also accompanying him in doing work as a labourer. 19. The letter (Ex.D-2) reads as under : (Vernacular matter omitted.....Ed.) 20. Looking to the evidence of prosecutrix Kirtanbai (P.W. 3) and from perusal of Ex.D-2, it appears that the prosecutrix left her parental house willingly. On the date of incident, the age of the prosecutrix was about 18 years. The evidence on record indicates that the prosecutrix willingly went away with the appellant. It appears that the prosecutrix did not complain anybody while she was going with the appellant. It indicates that she had gone with the appellant willingly. In absence of any threat, coercion or inducement having been established by the prosecution, I think it not possible to rely on the prosecution case to come to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the charges framed against him. The prosecutrix had sufficient opportunities not only to run away from the bus stand but also from the house where she was kept by the appellant. 21. Dr. Smt. Shashi Cladius (P.W. 12) deposed that on examination of prosecutrix Kirtanbai (P.W. 3), she did not find any injury on her body. Her hymen is old torn. No injury or swelling or redness or blood seen in the vagina. Cervix is normal. She is habituated to intercourse. 22. The conduct of prosecutrix Kirtanbai (P.W. 3) clearly shows that she was a consenting party. 23. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge are not sustainable and the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 24. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. Appeal allowed.