Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1537 of 2018 Revisionist :- Ritu Raj @ Arvind And Anr.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Hari Bans Singh,Hari Bans Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the revisionist which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Hari Bans Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Prakash Mishra, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2.
This revision has been preferred from an order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia dated 12.04.2018 in Case Crime No.636 of 2016 (State Vs. Ritu Raj @ Arvind), under Sections 363, 366, 504 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, PS Nagra, District Ballia.
It is stated that though by the order impugned dated 12.04.2018 revisionist no.2 had been given into the custody of opposite party no.2, opposite party no.2 was compelling revisionist no.2 to marry an unknown man forcibly and against her wish and for the purpose she was being tortured by her mother, opposite party no.2. She was also beaten by her father with a threat of being done to death. She was forcibly detained in her own house. Under such circumstances she escaped from the house of opposite party no.2 and came over to Amritsar in Punjab to meet her husband, revisionist no.1 and today she has appeared in Court in the aforesaid manner.
Looking to the aforesaid circumstances the Court did inquire of the revisionist about the said facts that are stated in the supplementary affidavit which is an affidavit filed by Smt. Priyanka, revisionist no.2, and, she has informed the Court that she was being forced to marry an old man against her choice under threat of violence by her parents.
By means of the impugned order the custody of the revisionist no.2, who claims to have married revisionist no.1 in accordance with Hindu Rites on 03.02.2017 at the Arya Samaj Krishana Nagar, Prayag was given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to the mother on the ground that her date of birth has entered in her Class 5th certificate shows her date of birth to be 03.07.2000 and by that age she was a minor. In an earlier order passed by the CJM, Ballia during the same proceedings an order dated 07.04.2017 has been recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, where he has said in the order that the victim was sent for her medical examination and in the medical examination her age has been opined more than 18 year whereas her date of birth according to her Class 5th certificate is 03.07.2000 that reckons her to be a minor. The CJM in finally deciding the matter preferred the date of birth recorded in the school certificate over the medical estimation of her age.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has relied on the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suhani & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4532 of 2018 decided on 26.04.2018 wherein their Lordships hearing an appeal from a judgment of this Court in a Habeas Corpus matter where the victim who had married a person of her choice and claimed herself to be a major was denied relief on the ground that in her High School Certificate her date of birth recorded showed her to be a minor aged 13 years, sent the victim for a medical estimation of her age to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and on the report of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences that she was aged between 19 to 24 years, their Lordships reversing the judgment of this Court held her to be 19 years of age and free her to go wherever she wanted. Her detention in the Nari Niketan was held unauthorized. As the factum of her marriage was admitted she was allowed to accompany her husband.
The aforesaid decision in Suhani (supra) certainly gives preference to medical estimation of the age of an alleged victim over school records which in that case were no less than a Secondary School Examination Certificate from the CBSE. It is, therefore, the law that going by the principle in Suhani medical estimation of age is to be given preference over other records of age including school records.
Here what the Magistrate has relied upon is not even the High School Certificate. It is a mere school record of Class 5th, the fidelity of which cannot always be vouchsafed about safety. This Court does not wish to comment on it either way on the Magistrate having clearly recorded in the order dated 12.04.2018 that the medical examination has estimated the age of the revisionist no.2 to be 18 years, she cannot be forced to live with any one against her wish including her parents.
In the result this revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia in Case Crime No.636 of 2016 (State Vs.
Ritu Raj @ Arvind), under Sections 363, 366, 504 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, PS Nagra, District Ballia is hereby set aside and reversed.
Revisionist no.2, Smt. Priyanka, who is present in Court is free to go wherever she wants and with whomsoever she wants to live. No one including the police will interfere with the right of the second revisionist to stay with anyone she wants and wherever she wants to go.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Shahroz