JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard. 2. In this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure Petitioner challenges correctness of the order dated 15.11.99 passed by learned S.D.J.M. Bhubaneswar in G.R. Case No. 3585 of 1999 and the confirming order dated 15.1.2000 of the Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner to get the custody of his daughter who, according to him, was aged about 15 years on the date of the occurrence. 3. This Court is quite conscious of the position of law that in the garb of second revision an application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should not be entertained. But in the present case, the approach of the learned Sessions Judge is found to be ipso facto incorrect and therefore, it is felt expedient to invoke the inherent power to pass appropriate direction regarding the custody of the victim girl Lily Pradhan. 4. As per the informant's report and the prosecution allegation the victim girl Lily Pradhan's date of birth is 18.1.1984. Notwithstanding that, the Courts below have rejected the prayer of the Petitioner to take custody of the girl on the ground that the ossification test reveals her age to be 17- 18 years and the victim girl herself stated her age to be 20 years. Learned Sessions Judge has also referring to the decision reported in AIR 1970 Punjab 450 has made an inference that the date of birth noted in the School Leaving Certificate does not reflect the correct date of birth. Suo motu such presumption will not arise unless there is sufficient ground to raise such a presumption. That aspect was completely lost sight by the learned Sessions Judge. Apart from that, the ossification test does not accurately determine the age of a person. As noted by the learned Sessions Judge there exist a margin or error of two years in determining the age on the basis of ossification report. So if the age is made less by two years that supports the version of the Petitioner that his daughter is aged about 15 years. Hence there is no reason to disbelieve the same in the absence of any contrary material. In that context, the declaration made by the victim girl that her age is 20 years is of no consequence in the absence of any evidence in that respect. Hence there is no reason to disbelieve the same in the absence of any contrary material. In that context, the declaration made by the victim girl that her age is 20 years is of no consequence in the absence of any evidence in that respect. Under such circumstance, the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge to reject the prayer of the Petitioner is not only against the principle of law in Guardians and Wards Act but also it is against principle of natural justice. It also affects the parental duties of the Petitioner. Under such circumstance, the impugned orders of the Courts below are non-sustainable and accordingly set aside. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party-State of Orissa states that the Court below rejected the Petitioner's prayer to give girl in the custody of the Petitioner virtually on the ground of the apprehension which the girl entertained from her parents. That was no ground to reject the petition. Petitioner could have been sufficiently warned and conditions could have been imposed by the Courts below while releasing the girl Lily Pradhan in the custody of her father i.e., the Petitioner. 6. In the given facts and circumstances, it is directed that the victim girl in stead of being kept in a 'Short Stay Home' be immediately released in the custody of the Petitioner who shall execute a bond to maintain well being of the girl and not to terrorise punish or torture her in any manner whatsoever. To ensure safety of the girl he shall produce the girl before the S.D.J.M. Bhubaneswar once a week for a period of two months and during that period if the S.D.J.M. shall be satisfied that the girl has been kept properly without any torture or ill?treatment then he may pass further order relating to production of the girl before him in such interval which shall be deemed just and proper to him and that condition shall continue till conclusion of the trial. However, at any time after the girl is left in the custody of the Petitioner (as per above order) if the S.D.J.M. shall find any reason not to keep the girl in the custody of the Petitioner he may pass appropriate order in that respect notwithstanding the aforesaid orders of this Court. However, at any time after the girl is left in the custody of the Petitioner (as per above order) if the S.D.J.M. shall find any reason not to keep the girl in the custody of the Petitioner he may pass appropriate order in that respect notwithstanding the aforesaid orders of this Court. Besides that in the bond which the Petitioner shall execute in the above manner, he shall furnish his present correct address thereon and the Petitioner shall not change the place of abode without due intimation to learned S.D.J.M. or to the trial Court, as the case may be. In addition to the above conditions, while releasing the girl in the custody of the Petitioner, if it will be felt necessary in the facts and circumstances which exist learned S.D.J.M. may also direct the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police-station to keep a watch or any such order which shall deem just and proper to him. 7. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed