MTP act- where and when pregnancies can be terminated: Bombay high Court 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 956 OF 2018
“ABC” .. Petitioner
Through her Guardian
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
Through its Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai­32.
2. Chief Medical Officer,
Government Hospital, Latur.
Mr.Sujit A. Patil h/f. Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for respondent/State.
CORAM :  S.S.SHINDE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
   RESERVED ON : 01.02.2018
 PRONOUNCED ON : 02.02.2018
J U D G M E N T [PER : S.M.GAVHANE,J.] :­
1. Rule.  Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally   with   the   consent   of   learned   Counsels   appearing
for the respective parties.
2. The minor victim girl who is physically abused
and mentally tortured has approached this Court through
her father – the guardian for seeking directions in the
nature   of   writ   of   mandamus,   thereby   directing   to
terminate   her   pregnancy   by   following   the   procedure   as
described under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,
1971   [hereinafter   referred   as   to   “the   MTP   Act”]   and
further directions to conduct DNA test of unborn foetus,
so as to determine natural parents of it.
3. The guardian father of the victim contends that
he has four daughters and one son.  The victim is minor
daughter aged about 16 years.   She is studying in 10th
standard.  As per her bona fide certificate issued by the
school, her date of birth is 05.01.2001.  It is further
contended   that   his   elder   daughter   has   married   on
06.01.2013   with   one   Vikas   Rathod   and   he   is   not
maintaining his wife.   Vikas drove his wife out of his
house.   Therefore, she is residing with the petitioner.
Some complaints were filed against the matrimonial family
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:33 :::
( 3 ) wp956.18
members of elder daughter of the petitioner and therefore
there was grudge in the mind of that family. 
4. According to the petitioner on 27.11.2017 when
victim went in the morning to answer the nature’s call
outside the house, she did not return.   The petitioner
tried to search her.   However,  he could not find her.
The   petitioner   suspected   that   his   son­in­law   Vikas   and
his   family,   who   had   grudge   in   the   mind,   must   have
kidnapped the victim to pressurize the petitioner for not
filing any complaint.  When the petitioner could not find
the   victim,   he   lodged   the   First   Information   Report   in
Kingaon   Police   Station   bearing   No.144   of   2017   on
30.11.2017 under section 363 read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.  After the said crime was registered,
the son­in­law of the petitioner brought the victim in
the   police   station   on   04.12.2017.     At   that   time,
statement of the victim was recorded wherein she did not
allege any overtact on the part of Vikas and she refused
for   any   medical   examination.     On   this   count,   she   was
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:33 :::
( 4 ) wp956.18
remanded in Child Rehabilitation Home at Latur.   In the
said Home, statement of the victim under section 164 of
Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   came   to   be   recorded   on
11.12.2017 by the PSI attached to Gandhi   Chowk Police
Station, Latur, in which she narrated the entire incident
and   made   accusation   against   Vikas   Rathod   of   committing
rape by threatening her to her life, and against him and
his father of inserting some substance in her mouth and
of   putting   a   handkerchief   in   her   mouth.   Thereafter,
offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC was added
in the above said crime.  
5. The   petitioner   contends   that   after   recording
statement   as   above   of   the   victim,   she   was   referred   on
20.12.2017 to the Government Hospital, Latur for medical
examination.  Upon medical examination, it was found that
she is carrying two months’ pregnancy.   Thereafter, the
accused and his relatives threatened the complainant for
dire   consequences,   if   he   does   not   take   case   back.
Therefore,   applications   were   submitted   in   the   police
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:33 :::
( 5 ) wp956.18
station.  
6. According   to   the   petitioner,   minor   victim   who
was under constant mental and physical pressure of the
accused, initially did not attribute any overtact against
the accused.   Only when she was in Child Rehabilitation
Home,   she   has   gathered   courage   and   she   narrated   the
incident.     As   such,   firstly   the   victim   was   sexually
assaulted and then she was pressurized for not giving any
statement against the accused.   Thus, the victim became
pregnant   due   to   heinous   act   committed   by   the   accused
person.     Therefore,   considering   her   age,   her   marital
status, physical and mental condition and her education,
it is desirable to terminate unwanted pregnancy in the
light of provisions under sub­section 2(b)(i) of section
3 of the MTP Act.   It is contended that after getting
knowledge of pregnancy of the victim, the petitioner and
his   entire   family   was   disturbed   and   was   in   shock   and
therefore some time was consumed.  
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:33 :::
( 6 ) wp956.18
7. Considering   aforesaid   contentions   in   the
petition and prayer of the petitioner to send the victim
for medical examination and opinion of two experts, by
order dated 23.01.2018, we had directed to produce the
victim   before   the   Medical   Board   constituted   for   the
purpose under the MTP Act, with directions to the Medical
Board to forthwith examine the victim and tender report
to this Court.  The petitioner was medically examined at
Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, by
expert   committee   consisting   of   the   following   five
members:­
i)  Dr. Shrinivas Gadappa (Chairman) Prof. & HOD, OBGY
ii) Dr.Prashant Titare (Member) Asso. Prof. Radiology
iii)Dr.P.S. Patil (Member) Prof. & HOD Paediatrics
iv) Dr. Ghuge (Member) Prof & HOD, Psychiatry
v)  Dr.Rashmi Bengali (Member) Asso. Prof. Anaesthesia
8. Said Committee tendered to this Court a report
dated   25.01.2018.     Said   report   is   taken   on   record   and
marked   “X”   for   the   purpose   of   identification.     In   the
said report, the following findings are recorded :­
1)   From   general   medical   examination   she   has   no   active
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:33 :::
( 7 ) wp956.18
medical complaints.
2) Obstetric examination her vital parameters are within
normal limits with 16.2 weeks of pregnancy.
3)   Ultrasonographic   examination   suggestive   of   single
live   intrauterine   foetus   of   approximately   16   weeks   2
days.  No gross lethal foetal anomaly (Report attached)
4)   On   Psychiatric   examination,   clinically   she   is   of
average intelligence. No active current psychopathology.
Her concept and judgment are intact. She is aware about
the incident and the consequences about the continuation
of pregnancy.  
9. The   conclusions   of   the   said   Committee   are   as
follows :­
1) Current   pregnancy,   on   clinical   and
ultrasonographical   examination   is   around   16.2   weeks   of
gestation.   No gross lethal congenital anomalies in the
foetus.  
2) Her   physical   and   mental   health   is   within   normal
limits.
3) Under   the   Medical   Termination   of   Pregnancy   Act,
1971 (34 of 1971) under clause 3 of 2 on humanitarian
grounds such as when pregnancy arises from a sex crime
like   rape   or   intercourse   with   a   “mentally   ill   person”
etc.;   when   the   length   of   pregnancy   is   less   than   20
weeks.
4) Risk of termination of pregnancy is within normal
acceptable limits.  
10. The provisions of sections 3,4 and 5 of the MTP
Act, which provide for termination of certain pregnancy
by   the   registered   medical   practitioner   and   which   are
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:33 :::
( 8 ) wp956.18
relevant are as under :­
3. When   pregnancies   may   be   terminated   by
registered medical practitioners ­
(1) Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   the
Indian   Penal   Code   (45   of   1860),   a   registered
medical   practitioner   shall   not   be   guilty   of   any
offence   under   that   Code   or   under   any   other   law
for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is
terminated   by   him   in   accordance   with   the
provisions of this Act.
(2) Subject   to   the   provisions   of   sub­section
(4),   a   pregnancy   may   be   terminated   by   a
registered medical practitioner,
(a) where the length of the pregnancy does not
exceed twelve weeks, if such medical practitioner
is, or 
(b) where   the   length   of   the   pregnancy   exceeds
twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if
not   less   than   two   registered   medical
practitioners   are,   of   opinion,   formed   in   good
faith, that ­
(i) the   continuance   of   the   pregnancy   would
involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman
or   of   grave   injury   to   her   physical   or   mental
health; or
(ii) there   is   a   substantial   risk   that   if   the
child   were   born,   it   would   suffer   from   such
physical   or   mental   abnormalities   as   to   be
seriously handicapped.  
Explanation 1 – Where any pregnancy is alleged by
the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape,
the   anguish   caused   by   such   pregnancy   shall   be
presumed   to   constitute   a   grave   injury   to   the
mental health of the pregnant woman.  
Explanation 2 – Where any pregnancy occurs as a
result of failure of any device or method used by
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:33 :::
( 9 ) wp956.18
any married woman or her husband for the purpose
of   limiting   the   number   of   children,   the   anguish
caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be presumed
to   constitute   a   grave   injury   to   the   mental
health of the pregnancy woman.
(3) in determining whether the continuance of a
pregnancy   would   involve   such   risk   of   injury   to
the   health   as   is   mentioned   in   sub­section   (2),
account   may   be   taken   of   the   pregnant   woman’s
actual or reasonable foreseeable environment.
(4)   (a)   No   pregnancy   of   a   woman,   who   has   not
attained   the   age   of   eighteen   years,   or,   who,
having attained the age of eighteen years, is a
[mentally ill person], shall be terminated except
with the consent in writing of her guardian.
(b) Save as otherwise provided in clause (a), no
pregnancy   shall   be   terminated   except   with   the
consent of the pregnant woman.
4. Place   where   pregnancy   may   be   terminated   ­
No   termination   of   pregnancy   shall   be   made   in
accordance with this Act at any place other than
­
(a) a   hospital   established   or   maintained   by
Government , or 
(b) a place for the time being approved for the
purpose of this Act by Government or a District
Level   Committee   constituted   by   that   Government
with the Chief Medical Officer or District Health
Officer as a Chairperson of the said Committee.
Provided   that   the   District   Level   Committee
shall consist of not less than three and not more
than   five   members   including   the   Chairperson,   as
the Government may specify from time to time.
5. Sections 3 and 4 when not to apply ­
(1) The provisions of section 4, and so much of
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:34 :::
( 10 ) wp956.18
of the provisions of sub­section (2) of section 3
as relate to the length of the pregnancy and the
opinion   of   not   less   than   two   registered   medical
practitioners, shall not apply to the termination
of   a   pregnancy   by   a   registered   medical
practitioner   in   a   case   where   he   is   of   opinion,
formed   in   good   faith,   that   the   termination   of
such   pregnancy   is   immediately   necessary   to   save
the life of the pregnant woman.
(2) Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   the
Indian   Penal   Code   (45   of   1860),   the   termination
of pregnancy by   person who is not a registered
medical   practitioner   shall   be   an   offence
punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than two years but which
may extend to seven years under that Code, that
Code shall, to this extent, stand modified.
(3) Whoever terminates any pregnancy in a place
other than that mentioned in section 4, shall be
punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than two years but which
may extend to seven years.
Explanation 1 ­ For the purposes of this section,
the   expression   “owner”   in   relation   to   a   place
means   any   person   who   is   the   administrative   head
or   otherwise   responsible   for   the   working   or
maintenance   of   a  hospital   or   place,   by   whatever
name   called,   where   the   pregnancy   may   be
terminated under this Act.
Explanation   2   ­   For   the   purposes   of   this
section,so   much   of   the   provisions   of   clause   (d)
of   section   2   relate   to   the   possession,   by
registered medical practitioner, of experience or
training in gynaecology and obstetrics shall not
apply.
11. Referring   the   above   provisions,   this   Court   in
Writ Petition No.14173   of 2017  “X (since minor through
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:34 :::
( 11 ) wp956.18
her   mother)   Vs.   The   Union   of   India   &   Ors.,   (Coram   :
R.M.Borde & Smt.Vibha Kankanwadi,JJ) in para 10 of the
judgment dated 12.12.2017 observed as under :­
“10. Although section 3 of the Act provides the limit of
12   weeks   for   medically   terminating   pregnancy   by   a
medical practitioner and, where the length of pregnancy
exceeds 12 weeks but does not exceed 20 weeks and if,
not less than two medical practitioners are of opinion,
formed in good faith, the continuance of pregnancy would
involve   a   risk   to   the   life   of   the   pregnant   woman   or
grave  injury   to   her   physical   or   mental   health  or   that
there is a substantial risk that if the child were born,
it   would   suffer   from   such   physical   or   mental
abnormalities as to be  seriously  handicapped, it  would
be permissible to terminate the pregnancy.   It must be
noted that section 5 of the Act is not controlled by the
limitation in respect of duration of pregnancy contained
in sections 3 and 4 of the Act.   If in the opinion of
medical   experts,   arrived   at   in   good   faith,   the
termination   of   pregnancy   is   immediately   necessary   to
save   the   life  of   the   pregnant  woman,   such  a   pregnancy
can   be   terminated.     It   also   must   be   noted   that
Explanation   1   to   section   3   records   that   where   the
pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been
caused by rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy can
be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental
health of the pregnant woman.   Sub­section (1)(b)(i) of
section   3  refers   to   the   risk   involved  to   the   pregnant
woman   which   includes   even   injury   in   respect   of   mental
health.   There shall not be reason to doubt that since
pregnancy   in   the   instant   matter   is   as   a   result   of
offence of rape, it causes a huge mental trauma and such
inference is in consonance with explanation 1 to section
3(1) of the Act of 1971.“
12. Moreover, in the above decision, the decision of
the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of  Suchita
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:34 :::
( 12 ) wp956.18
Srivastava Vs. Chandigarh Administration, 2009(9) SCC 1,
was referred wherein it has been observed that there is
no   doubt   that   a   woman’s   right   to   make   reproductive
choices   is   also   a   dimension   of   “personal   liberty”   as
understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It is important to recognize that productive choice can
be   exercised   to   procreate   as   well   as   to   abstain   from
procreating.     Moreover,   in   para   19   of   the   aforesaid
judgment, the Apex Court has observed as under :­
“19. As evident from its literal description, the “Best
interests”   test   requires   the   Court   to   ascertain   the
course of action which would serve the best interests of
the   person   in   question.     In   the   present   setting   this
means that the Court must undertake a careful inquiry of
the medical opinion on the feasibility of the pregnancy
as   well   as   social   circumstances   forced   by   the   victim.
It is important to note that the Court’s decision should
be guided by the interests of the victim alone and not
those of other stakeholders such as guardians or society
in general.   It is evident that the woman in question
will need care and assistance which will in turn entail
some   costs.     However,   that   cannot   be   a   ground   for
denying the exercise of reproductive rights.”
13. This Court in the case of “X” Vs. Union of India
&   Ors.   in   W.P.9915   of   2017  (Coram   :   R.M.Borde   &   S.M.
Gavhane,   JJ)   decided   on   10.08.2017   observed   that
Explanation 1 to section 3 records that where the pregnancy
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:34 :::
( 13 ) wp956.18
is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape,
the   anguish   caused   by   such   pregnancy   can   be   presumed   to
constitute   a   grave   injury   to   the   mental   health   of   the
pregnant woman.  Sub­section (1)(b)(i) of section 3 refers to
the risk involved to the pregnant woman which includes even
injury   in   respect   of   mental   health.     There   shall   not   be
reason to doubt that since pregnancy in the instant matter is
as   a   result   of   offence   of   rape,   it   causes   a   huge   mental
trauma   and   such   inference   is   in   consonance   with
explanation 1 to section 3(1) of the MTP Act.   It was
further observed that it must be noted that the pregnancy
carried by petitioner is as a result of physical abuse
thrust against her and that she has a choice whether to
continue with such pregnancy which is result of offence
against her person.   The freedom of making choice by a
woman which is integral part of personal liberty cannot
be taken away.  It shall also be taken into consideration
that besides physical injury, the legislature has widened
the scope of term injury by including injury to mental
health of a pregnant woman.  If continuation of pregnancy
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:34 :::
( 14 ) wp956.18
is harmful to mental health of a pregnant woman, then it
shall be construed as a good legal ground for permitting
her   to   terminate   pregnancy   and,   since   in   the   instant
matter,   pregnancy   is   alleged   to   be   as   a   result   of
physical abuse, in view of section 5 of the MTP Act, the
choice   of   the   victim   of   rape   of   terminating   unwanted
pregnancy needs to be respected.   Observations made by
Division Bench of this Court in Suo Motu Public Interest
Litigation no. 1/2016 in the matter of High Court on its
own   motion   Vs.   The   State   of   Maharashtra    reported   in
LEX(BOM)   2016   9   page   114,   in   paragraph   no.   13   of   the
judgment are relevant for consideration which read thus :
13. A woman irrespective of her marital status
can be pregnant either by choice or it can be
an   unwanted   pregnancy.     To   be   pregnant   is     a
natural phenomenon for which woman and man both
are   responsible.     Wanted   pregnancy   is   shared
equally,   however,   when   it   is   an   accident   or
unwanted,   then   the   man   may   not   be   there   to
share the burden but it may only be the woman
on   whom   the   burden   falls.   Under   such
circumstances,   a   question   arises   why   only   a
woman   should   suffer.     There   are   social,
financial   and   other   aspects   immediately
attached to the pregnancy of the   woman and if
pregnancy   is   unwanted,   it   can   have   serious
repercussions.     it   undoubtedly   affects   her
mental health.   The law makers have taken care
of helpless plight of a woman and have enacted
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:34 :::
( 15 ) wp956.18
Section   3(2)(b)(i)   by   incorporating   the   words
“grave   injury   to   her   mental   health”.     It   is
mandatory   on   the   registered   medical
practitioner while forming opinion of necessity
of   termination   of   pregnancy   to   take   into
account whether it is injurious to her physical
or mental health.   While doing so, the woman’s
actual   or   reasonable   foreseeable   environment
may be taken into account.
14. In the case of  “X” Vs. Union of India (Supra),
this Court has also observed that apart from danger to
the life of the petitioner, this Court has to take note
of the psychological trauma the petitioner is undergoing
as a result of carrying unwanted pregnancy.  As has been
stated above, the freedom of petitioner to make choice to
terminate unwanted pregnancy which is result of physical
abuse needs to be respected and such freedom of choice
shall   have   to   be   construed   as   integral   part   of   her
personal liberty.  
15. In the present case, the date of birth of the
petitioner   is   05.01.2001.     On   the   date   of   filing   of
petition   on   15.01.2018,   she   completed   17   years   of   her
age.  Thus, there is no dispute that she is a minor being
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:34 :::
( 16 ) wp956.18
below   18   years   of   age   and   therefore   she   filed   this
petition through her father – the guardian.  On complaint
of   her   father,   crime   was   registered   in   Kingaon   Police
Station,   Dist.   Latur,   initially   for   the   offence
punishable under section 363 read with section 34 of the
IPC against Vikas and his father and then after recording
statement of the victim, offence under sections 376 of
the   IPC   was   added.   Thus,   it   is   clear   that   the   minor
victim who claims termination of pregnancy by filing this
petition  through her  father is a victim of  rape.   The
report of the expert committee under the MTP Act, 1971
shows that current pregnancy of the victim is of around
16.2   weeks.     Thus,   it   is   clear   that   length   of   the
pregnancy   of   the   victim   exceeds   12   weeks   but   does   not
exceed   20   weeks   and   hence   said   pregnancy   can   be
terminated   by   registered   medical   practitioners,   if   not
less   than   two   registered   medical   practitioners   are   of
opinion   formed   in   good   faith   that   continuation   of
pregnancy   would   involve   a   risk   to   the   life   of   the
pregnant   woman   or   of   grave   injury   to   her   physical   or
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:34 :::
( 17 ) wp956.18
mental health; or there is a substantial risk that if the
child were born, it would suffer from such physical or
mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped, in
the light of provisions under section 3 (2)(b) (i) and
(ii) of the MTP Act. 
16. In   the   present   case,   from   the   conclusions
recorded by the expert committee under the MTP Act, in
its   report   (Exh.”X”),   it   is   not   stated   that   there   is
substantial risk if the child is born, in the light of
sub­clause   (ii)   of   clause   (b)   of   sub­section(2)   of
section   3   of   the   MTP   Act.       However,   considering   the
contentions in the petition that the pregnancy is caused
by   rape,   the   case   of   the   petitioner   falls   under   subclause
(i) of clause (b) of sub­section(2) of section 3
of the MTP Act.
17. Keeping   this   in   view,   now   it   is   to   be   seen
whether the victim in the present case can be allowed to
terminate the pregnancy in the light of aforesaid said
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:34 :::
( 18 ) wp956.18
provision.  The expert committee in its report gave four
conclusions   referred   in   detail   in   para   No.   9   (supra).
Amongst said conclusions, conclusion No.3 is that under
the   Medical   Termination   of   Pregnancy   Act,   1971   (34   of
1971) under clause 3 of 2 on humanitarian grounds such as
when   pregnancy   arises   from   a   sex   crime   like   rape   or
intercourse with a “mentally ill person” etc.; when the
length of pregnancy is less than 20 weeks.
18. It   appears   from   the   above   conclusion   that   in
case   pregnancy   arises   from   sex   crime   like   rape   or
intercourse with mentally ill person and when the length
of   the   pregnancy   is   less   than   20   weeks,   there   can   be
termination under the MTP Act.  This conclusion does not
state   that   in   case   pregnancy   of   the   present   victim   is
allowed to continue, the same would involve risk to the
life  of the victim  or grave injury to her physical  or
mental health.  However, from the above referred admitted
facts   that   the   victim   is   pregnant   because   of   rape   and
crime is registered against the accused for the offence
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:34 :::
( 19 ) wp956.18
punishable under section 376 of the IPC, it can be said
that said pregnancy has been foist on the victim against
her   wish   and   said   pregnancy   is   unwanted   pregnancy.
Therefore,   anguish   caused   by   such   pregnancy   shall   be
presumed   to   constitute   a   grave   injury   to   the   mental
health of the pregnant woman, as per Explanation 1 under
section 3 referred to above.  Another reason to hold so
is that admittedly the victim is taking education in 10th
standard and she is residing in the village.  Therefore,
she will have to face to the blame of the society, if she
continues   with   the   pregnancy   and   even   it   would   be
difficult   for   her   to   continue   with   her   education.
Naturally,   therefore   said   pregnancy   would   cause   huge
trauma to victim.  As the petitioner victim is minor, the
petition  is filed by her  father – guardian. As she  is
minor, as per sub­section (4) of section 3 of the MTP Act
,   consent   in   writing   of   her   guardian   is   required   to
terminate pregnancy.   However, considering her age i.e.
17 years, on her request through her Counsel, in order to
know   her   wish   when   heard   in   the   Chamber,   she   also
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:34 :::
( 20 ) wp956.18
disclosed that it is difficult for her to show her face
to   the   people   in   the   village   and   school   due   to   the
pregnancy   with   which   does   not   wish   to   continue.     The
expert   committee   conclusion   also   shows   that   risk   of
termination   of   pregnancy   is   within   normal   acceptable
limits. In these circumstances, for the reasons discussed
above, we hold that there is no impediment in allowing
the petitioner – victim to terminate her pregnancy.
19. Learned   counsel   for   petitioner,   states   on
instructions, that the petitioner would like to complete
the procedure of termination of pregnancy at Government
Medical College, Latur, which is approved as per section
4 of the MTP Act as informed by the Government Pleader.
The   Dean   of   Government   Medical   College,   Latur   is   thus
directed   to   forthwith   complete   the   procedure   of
termination   of   pregnancy   of   minor   petitioner   under
supervision   of   the   team   of   medical   experts   after
obtaining consent in writing of guardian as per law.  Two
members of the team shall be experts in Obstetrics and
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:34 :::
( 21 ) wp956.18
Gynecology.  
20. Since   according   to   petitioner,   the   pregnancy
carried   by   her   is   as   a   result   of   offence   of   rape,
complaint has already been lodged and the matter is under
investigation,   the   Dean,   Government   Medical   College,
Latur   is   directed   to   preserve   tissue   sample   and   blood
sample of the foetus for carrying out necessary medical
tests   including   DNA,   finger   printing/mapping.     The
Investigating   Officer   conducting   investigation   in   the
matter shall ensure that the samples of tissues and blood
etc.   shall   be   forwarded   to   the   Regional   Forensic
Laboratory, Aurangabad, for DNA, Finger printing/mapping
and   for   carrying   necessary   tests   and   the   samples   and
report shall be preserved for the purpose of trial of the
offence.  
21. It is made clear that the Doctor who have put
their opinions on record shall have the immunity in the
event of occurrence of any litigation arising out of the
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:34 :::
( 22 ) wp956.18
instant petition.
22. Rule is accordingly made absolute.  There shall
be no order as to costs.
23. Parties   and   all   concerned   to   act   upon
authenticated copy of this judgment.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.S.SHINDE,J.]
snk/2018/FEB18/wp956.18
::: Uploaded on – 02/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 15/02/2018 13:09:34 :::