Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The medical examination report as would appear from the impugned order opined the prosecutrix to be 17 years. There is, going by the settled law, variation of two years on either side of the medically estimated age, and, therefore, the prosecutrix could be considered a major. The impugned order also shows that in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she took a categorical stand that she had married revisionist no.1 of her free will; that she wants to live with him; and, that she does not want to live with her parents. Thus, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom the issue of custody under orders of the Division Bench of this Court came up, there was this medical opinion indicating the prosecutrix to be aged about 17 years, and, her stand under Section 164 Cr.P.C. unmistakably in favour of the integrity of her marriage to revisionist no.1.

20. This Court does not think so. The reason is that in case allowance of two years in medical estimation of age for the purpose determining the right of a person to marry or to stay with a person of her choice, and, more particularly, in this case to be forced to live in a Nari Niketan were to be construed on the other side, it would be construing the variation in a manner that curtails personal liberty that is otherwise one of the most sacrosanct constitutional guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, where the issue is whether a person medically estimated to be aged about 18 years is to be put in incarceration because she has married a person of her choice or be left free to go and stay with him, in the opinion of this Court the medical estimated age of about 17 or 18 years ought to be construed in favour of liberty, and, fortiori in favour of the person seeking restoration of her liberty. Here it is the prosecutrix.

We have received the report from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, which has examined the petitioner no. 1. The radiological examination and the final report/opinion on the same reads as follows:-
"Radiological Examination X-Rays advised for age estimation:-
X-Ray Medial End of Clavicle, Sternum AP & Lat. view, Pelvis AP view, L.S. Spine -Lat. View, Wrist & Elbow-AP & Lat. View, Shoulder-AP view, were done in Radiology Department. Report of Radiological Examination-
All epiphysis at elbow, shoulder and wrist joint fused, suggestive of age > 16.5 years. Fusion of iliac crest epiphysis, suggestive of age 19 + 1 years. Medial end of clavicle not fused, suggestive of age 22-27 years. S1 of sacrum not fused with S2, suggestive of age 17-24 years. Imp.:-Estimated Bone age is between 19-24 years.
FINAL REPORT/OPINION:
Considering the findings of physical, dental & radiological examinations we are of the considered opinion that the bone age of petitioner Miss Suhani is between 19-24 years."