Naru Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

The petitioner Naru Ram has filed the instant habeas corpus petition alleging that his daughter Mst. 'R', the alleged corpus, is minor. Her date of birth

is 08.06.2006 and that she had been kidnapped by respondent No.4 Man Singh.

As per the factual report placed on record, the corpus was traced out by the officers of the Police Station Kelwada, District Rajsamand during

investigation of FIR No.2/2021. She refused to go with her parents, on which, she was sent to the Sakhi-One Stop Centre, Rajsamand. There was no

evidence regarding admission of the corpus in any school, on which, the CWC, Rajsamand got conducted the medical examination of the corpus, as

per which, she was found to be aged between 18 and 20 years.

The corpus was produced before this court on 19.01.2021. From her physical appearance, this court was duly satisfied that the corpus was definitely

not 15 years of age as claimed by the petitioner. Upon this, the CWC, Rajsamand was directed to undertake a proper enquiry for age determination of

the corpus in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The corpus was directed to be sent to the Child Care Institution. The CWC conducted

the age related enquiry and has forwarded a report dated 08.02.2021 to this court, as per which, the corpus has been found to be aged 18 years and 1

month. The corpus was produced in the court on 15.02.2021, on which date, she bluntly refused to go with her parents. A submission was made on

behalf of the petitioner that as per the horoscope, the date of birth of the corpus is 08.06.2006. The court expressed its dissatisfaction on the

conclusion arrived at by the CWC observing that the order of the CWC was without any reason and the original record of the CWC was summoned.

Mr. Farzand Ali, learned G.A.-cum-A.A.G., has produced the original record of the CWC before us today. We conferred with the petitioner and his

wife Smt. Basanti and made an enquiry from them regarding the number of children born to them and their respective ages. Neither the petitioner nor

his wife are able to give out the correct details regarding the age of their seven surviving children. The petitioner's wife Smt. Basanti states that the

horoscope was not prepared at the time of birth of the corpus, but as there was some discrepancy regarding the names of two sisters, the horoscope

was got prepared subsequently. Otherwise also, the name of the corpus is mentioned in the horoscope, which makes its genuineness doubtful. It is rife

to say that the horoscope is generally prepared after the birth of a child and only the initial letter as per the astrological calculations is mentioned

therein and not the name of the child because the naming is normally done at a later stage. Smt. Basanti admitted that they did not get horoscope of

any of their other children prepared.

The Aadhaar Card of the corpus is available in the case file of the CWC, in which her date of birth is mentioned as 17.11.2003. As per the factual

report of the Investigating Officer, the date of birth of the corpus, as per the Aadhaar Card, is mentioned as 17.01.2003. Thus, apparently, there is a

discrepancy regarding the date of birth of the corpus in the documents available on the file. Admittedly, the corpus has never been admitted to any

school.

In this background, as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the date of birth of the corpus can be determined on the basis of her medical

examination. The report of the Medical Jurist, Government General Hospital, Nathdwara, is available on the case diary, as per which, after conducting

x-ray of the elbow joint, wrist joint and pelvis of the corpus, a conclusion was drawn that the age of the corpus Mst. 'R' is above 18 years and below

20 years. Thus, we have no reason to doubt the finding recorded by the CWC, Rajsamand in the enquiry report dated 08.02.2021 that the age of the

corpus is 18 years and 1 month. In the statement of the corpus recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she has denied that she was kidnapped by anyone

or was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse.

In this view of the matter and as the corpus is major as on the date, we hereby direct that she shall be set at liberty from the Child Care Institution,

where she is lodged, and will be safely escorted to the place desired by her.

The habeas corpus petition is dismissed. The rule is discharged.