1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.692 of 2009 KAMLESH RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 14.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner claims himself to be the father of the victim girl, namely, Ranju Kumari and is aggrieved by the order dated 1.4.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Cri.Rev.No.29/90 (Pramod Kumar Roy vs. The State of Bihar). An F.I.R. was lodged by the maternal uncle of the girl under sections 366,363 and 34 of the I.P.C. alleging therein that Uday Kumar and Virchand Yadav came to her house and took the victim Ranju Kumari, his niece on the pretext that father of Ranju Kumari was ill Ranju Kumari thereafter did not reach her house and as such the F.I.R. was lodged with an allegation that she was enticed away by the accused persons. It appears that the aforesaid Ranju Kumari appeared before the Court and made her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 3.1.2009 that she was never enticed away by any of the accuseds. On the contrary she had 2 solemnized marriage with accused Uday Kumar out of her own free will. An issue, therefore, was raised with regard to the age of the victim. Materials on record indicate that the certificate issued by the Primary School, Government Middle School Chandanpatti, P.S. Sakra, District Muzaffarpur, disclosed her date of birth as 2.11.1990. The victim was medically examined by the doctors whereafter her age was assessed between 17 ½ to 18 ½ years. The prosecution relied upon matriculation certificate wherein her date of birth was incorporated as 31.12.1992. Since there was a dispute with regard to her age the victim was lodged in an Aftercare Home under the orders of the Court. On an application preferred by one Uday Kumar claiming himself to be duly wedded husband of the victim the matter was taken up by the learned C.J.M.. It was found that the certificate from school first attended by the victim was not produced on affidavit by the applicant and having regard to the date of birth appearing in two certificates as also keeping in view the opinion of the doctor she was not allowed to go with the applicant husband. Aggrieved thereby Pramod Kumar Rai preferred revision application in which aforesaid Uday Rai filed 3 application for impleadment as the applicant. On a consideration of the materials on record learned revisional court found that as per the opinion of the doctor she was between 17 ½ to 18 ½ years. The certificate issued by the school first attended by the girl also disclosed her date of birth as 2.11.1990. Having found so, the revision application was disposed of in the following manner:- “9. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The matter is remitted to the court of learned C.J.M., Muz- affarpur to decide the petition of the petitioner for release of the victim after giving finding with regard to date of birth entered in to the primary school Satpura and pass afresh order in accordance with law.” It is, thus, seen that the matter has been remanded to the learned court below for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. This Court only observes that even relying on the matriculation certificate the victim girl would be now close to 18 years of age. Court below if finds that she has attained age of understanding then after ascertaining her view shall allow her to walk off any judicial 4 restraint. Court has to keep in focus that she is neither an accused in the case nor an article which can be released in favour of any party. Anilkr.sinha (Kishore K.Mandal,J.)