Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. The aforesaid document was shown to the Court by the officiating Principal of the School, who also filed an affidavit dated 23.04.2018 styled as a supplementary affidavit, annexing therewith amongst other documents, a photostat copy of application for admission made by grandfather of the prosecutrix for her admission, a photostat copy of the school leaving certificate that was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and, a photostat copy of the relevant page of the admission register of the school annexed as Annexures nos.1, 3 & 2 respectively. A perusal of the admission register also indicates the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 10.08.2003, but it shows, like other documents that she joined the school in Class - VI and left in Class - VIII. There is no previous record about her date of birth from a school earlier attended. It cannot be said that the school record apart from carrying discrepancies in the columns in the school leaving certificate, are one that indicate the earliest record about the date of birth of the prosecutrix. There is also a counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.3, which is on record. There are photostat copies of the Pariwar Register and the discharge tickets from G.R. Medical College and J.A. Group relating to the wife of opposite party no.3, that has been referred to hereinbefore, annexed which allegedly relate to the date of delivery of the prosecutrix. It is difficult for the Court to express any definite opinion whether the documents annexed to the counter affidavit about the birth of the prosecutrix from the Hospital in fact relate to her or the other documents annexed are dependable account of her age, but that need not detain this Court for long as the report submitted by the Chief Medical Officer about the medical estimation of the age of the prosecutrix determined by the Medical Board dated 04.04.2018, under a covering memo dated 14.04.2018 shows that the prosecutrix has been opined to be 18 years of age by the Medical Board compromising three doctors, that is to say, the Chief Medical Officer, a Deputy Chief Medical Officer and a Medical Officer attached to the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad. The said report of the Medical Board is based on a radiological examination done at the department of Radiology, T.B. Sapru Hospital, a copy of which is annexed with the report of Medical Board dated 14.04.2018. According to the said report as noted above, the prosecutrix is aged about 18 years, and, on the date of marriage with the revisionist i.e. 07.12.2017, the age, would, therefore, not be much different giving allowance for the usual variation of two years on either side that is to be construed in favour of the person claiming such liberty and here too the same principle would apply as the question is one of liberty. It was argued by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3 that the variation of two years is for the purpose of judging criminal liability and not for the determining the right of a person to marry or to stay with a person of her choice.

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."