Allowed

Shamim Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2014Cr.M.P./2052/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition challenging the rejection of an application to release the victim from 'Nari Niketan'. It set aside the impugned order, directing the trial court to assess the victim's age or obtain a medical report before deciding her custody, noting she had claimed to be major and had a child.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 14.07.2014 setting aside and directed the court below to pass a fresh order after assessing the age of the victim girl or getting her age medically assessed.

Shamim Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 2052 of 2014

¶3

¶4

Shamim Ansari .… Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Most. Rita Devi ..... Opposite Parties ------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------For the Petitioner : : M/s. Prabhat Kr. Sinha For the State : : M/s. Lily Sahay, A.P.P. -------

¶8

2/ 15.09.2014. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

¶9

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2014 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in S.T. No. 481 of 2012, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release of his wife from 'Nari Niketan', Ranchi, has been rejected by the trial Court below.

¶10

The petitioner is facing trial in S.T. No. 481 of 2012, arising out of Patratu P.S. Case No. 115 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 1694 of 2012, which was instituted for the offence under Sections 366-A, 120-B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on an allegation against the petitioner of kidnapping the minor daughter of the informant.

¶11

The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she has disclosed her age to be 20 years and her age was also assessed by the Court below to be about 20 years, wherein she has clearly stated that she had herself gone with the petitioner and she has married the petitioner out of her own free will, she has also a child out of the wedlock, and she wants to live with the petitioner's family.

¶12

The Court below however, rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that in her school certificate, the date of birth of the victim has been mentioned as 02.10.1998, and as such, she is a minor. It also appears that the age of the victim girl was not assessed by the Trial Court below, nor the medical assessment of her age was done by the Court below.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the victim girl is a major lady and the petitioner and the victim have married and have also a child. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the date of birth in the school register was not correctly mentioned. It is submitted that even the medical assessment of the age of the victim girl was not done and the victim being a major girl

¶14

-2-

¶15

having a child also, is always free to live according to her wishes. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶17

After having heard learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, I find that even if the age of the victim girl is taken from the date of birth as mentioned in her school certificate, her age shall be about 16 years. In view of the fact that the victim has claimed to be a major girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., which was also assessed by the Court recording the statement of the victim girl, as also in view of the fact that the victim is also having a child, I am of the considered view that the Court below ought to have assessed the age of the victim girl itself, and if there was any doubt about the age, to have got the age of the victim girl assessed by a medical board and then to have taken any decision in the matter. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 14.07.2014 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶18

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.07.2014 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in S.T. No. 481 of 2012, is hereby, set aside and the Court below is directed to pass the order afresh either on its own assessment of the age of the victim girl, or upon getting the age of the victim girl medically assessed, as the case may be. It is expected that the fresh order shall be passed by the Court below without any unnecessary delay.

¶19

This application is accordingly, allowed with the directions as above.

¶20

(H.C.Mishra, J.)

¶21

D.S.

Shamim Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamim Ansari v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tribhuwan Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Abdul Mazid Ansari and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Dilip Yadav and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sanjeet Kumar Das Alias Sanjit Kr Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sujata Mukherjee and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ravi Kant Sharma Vs The State Of Jharkhand