Allowed

Petitioner a v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2020CW/11664/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Victim of rape sought permission to abort at 21-23 weeks via writ petition. Medical Board cited high risk but no adverse opinion to procedure, recommending Medical College for safety. Court directed permitting termination at Government Medical College, Kota.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to terminate pregnancy via expert team at Government Medical College, Kota; fetus preserved for DNA test; petitioner directed to report immediately.

Petitioner a Vs the State of Rajasthan — Medical Negligence | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11664/2020

¶3

Petitioner-A through her natural guardian father Shri Giriraj Son of Shri Prem Bihari Prajapati, aged about 37 years, resident of Kotadi (Patheda) P.S. Baran Sadar, Baran.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Chief Medical And Health Officer, Baran Dist. Baran.

¶9

Superintendent Of Police, Dist. Baran.

¶10

SHo, P.S. Baran Sadar, Dist. Baran.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

[Present through Video Conferencing]

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohan Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Saini, Addl. Govt. Counsel

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶15

Order

¶16

06/10/2020

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner victim of an offence of rape through her natural guardian – father for seeking a direction of giving permission to abort the foetus of around 21 weeks due to sexual assault on victim.

¶18

The facts pleaded in the writ petition are that victim had lodged an FIR in Police Station Sadar Baran, District Baran, under Sections 376(D)(A) of IPC and Section 5g, 5l, 5j(ii)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012,

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[CW-11664/2020]

¶21

This Court, vide order dated 25^th September, 2020, had directed the Chief Medical Health Officer, Baran to constitute a Medical Board for medical examination of victim to give opinion regarding termination of pregnancy.

¶22

In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the Medical Board, constituted by the CMHO, Baran, has prepared a report dated 26^th September, 2020. The report has opined that there is a high risk in termination of pregnancy and even after delivery, there may be complications.

¶23

The Board has further opined that if, at all, some procedure is to be adopted for termination of pregnancy or for delivery of child, the same should be performed at medical college level and not at Tertiary Centre.

¶24

This Court, after receiving the report of the Medical Board, on 29^th September, 2020, directed that copy of the medical report be made available to learned counsel for the petitioner victim and further, consent of parents, relating to risk, may also be taken by way of statement to be recorded before the Magistrate concerned.

¶25

In compliance of the directions given by this Court on 29^th September, 2020, the Magistrate concerned, i.e., the Judicial Magistrate, Baran has sent copy of the statements of the parents of the petitioner victim. The said statements clearly revealed that the victim may be permitted to have termination of pregnancy. The parents of the victim have also stated that victim girl is about 14 years and they have three more children and if any child is borne, the same will have adverse effects on the entire family.

¶26

This Court has gone through the medical report as well as statements of the parents of victim and finds that pregnancy of victim is of about 23 weeks. The Apex Court as well as this Court

¶27

(3 of 4) [CW-11664/2020]

¶28

in catena of cases have permitted termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks as per the health condition of victim.

¶29

This Court finds that no adverse report has been given by the Medical Board, if the procedure of termination of pregnancy is performed on victim.

¶30

This Court further finds that considering the entire facts, situation obtaining in the present case, the required permission to terminate the pregnancy, is required to be given.

¶31

This Court finds that the medical report has been prepared by the members of the Board constituted by CMHO, Baran and they have clearly opined that if any procedure is to be adopted, the same should be done at the medical college level.

¶32

This Court considering the entire facts of the present case, deems it proper to permit the termination of pregnancy of the petitioner victim by a team of expert doctors to be constituted by the Superintendent, Government Medical College, Kota at Medical College, Kota, without any further delay.

¶33

This Court deems it proper to direct the Authorities-Medical College, Kota to preserve the feotus of the petitioner for the purpose of DNA test, in case any need arises in future. This Court further deems it proper to give urgent directions in the present case, as any delay would be very fatal to victim petitioner.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Mr. Rohan Jain submitted that the petitioner victim would be able to report tomorrow at Government Medical College, Kota and the reporting of victim petitioner at the Medical College, will result into immediate steps to be taken by the Authorities.

¶35

The petitioner is permitted to report to the Medical College, Kota, as early as possible and immediately after reporting of the

¶36

(4 of 4)

¶37

[CW-11664/2020]

¶38

petitioner-victim to the Hospital, the Hospital-Authorities are directed to take appropriate steps to perform necessary procedure.

¶39

The present writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶40

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶41

Preeti Asopa /Monika/1

Petitioner a v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Petitioner a v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khushi Ram Gurjar S/O Shyamveer Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Liyakat Khan S/O Latoor Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Banty Kumar S/O Shri Bedriya Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Kumar Yadav S/O Govind Ram Yadav Vs Department of Administrative Reforms and Coordination

Krishna Kumar Yadav S/O Gopal Lal Yadav Vs Department of Administrative Reforms and Coordination

Kshitij Kumar Choudhary S/O Shri Suryapal Choudhary, Vs State of Rajasthan