ORDER : B.N. Karia, J. This Court had, on 19th May 2017, passed the following order : "This application has been preferred by the minor applicant herein through her father seeking the termination of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (for short MTP Act). 2. The applicant herein is 17 years of age and it is her case that she is a victim of offence of rape. 3. An FIR came to be filed being C.R. No.I- 96 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(j)(n) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 (for short POCSO). It is therefore urged that the termination of pregnancy of the minor applicant, who is a victim, should be directed under the MTP Act. 4. Learned APP has urged the Court to pass the order in the interest of minor. 5. Before any further order is passed, it would be desirable for the Court to obtain the report from the team of doctors and accordingly the following order is being passed :- A detailed medical report needs to be called for before permission of termination of pregnancy is acceded to. And therefore, The Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Surat shall cause to examine the minor applicant herein by a panel of senior-most Gynecologists of the Surat Civil Hospital. The aforesaid team of doctors shall examine the victim on 22nd May, 2017 if as far as possible ( between 10:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.) and after interacting with her and shall give in writing opinion at the earliest, bearing in mind the advanced stage of pregnancy and her physical and mental condition, it shall also opine whether there will be a substantial risk to the life of the minor applicant, if the child is born, or that the child would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. 6. At the request of the father of the applicant, it is further being directed that the Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Surat may admit the minor applicant and discharge her after the Court's order. 7. Let the applicant remain present before the Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital on 22nd May, 2017 at around 10:00 a.m. 8. 6. At the request of the father of the applicant, it is further being directed that the Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Surat may admit the minor applicant and discharge her after the Court's order. 7. Let the applicant remain present before the Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital on 22nd May, 2017 at around 10:00 a.m. 8. A copy of this order shall be furnished to the learned advocates appearing for the respective sides for follow up action. 9. Intimation of this order shall be sent to the Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Surat forthwith by the learned APP Mr. Dharmesh Devnani appearing for the respondent-State. 10. Let this matter appear on 23rd May, 2017 with the report of the experts in a sealed cover. Direct service permitted forthwith today." 2. Yesterday, when matter was called out, learned APP Shri LB Dabhi appearing for the respondent-State of Gujarat has produced on record, a copy of communication which came to be received by him from the Resident Medical Officer, New Civil Hospital, Surat dated 23rd May 2017 enclosing therewith opinion of the experts of Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Government Medical College & New Civil Hospital, Surat of even date, wherein, it is opined that, "Ravina's pregnancy can be terminated with slight risk and that this slight risk will be less as compared to the mental agony and physical risk of continuing the pregnancy till full term and delivering then." 3. As can be culled out from the record, the girl is 17 years of age. The complaint is indicative of the alleged rape by the accused. Considering her age and allegations made in the complaint, on giving her consent, the length of pregnancy since is going to complete 20 weeks, bearing in mind her specific consent and averments made in the application, this petition deserves consideration. 4. Apt it would be, to reproduce at this stage, Section 3 of the MTP Act :- "(1) When pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners :- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code, 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 sub-section (4) a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner, - (a) Where the length of he 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 : (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 I of this provision provided that 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. 5. This Court in case of Sushma Alias Gudiya D/o. Shivram Hariharprasad Maurya v. State of Gujarat & Ors. passed in Special Criminal Application No. 1693 of 2016 has observed and held thus :- "Having heard both the sides and having also taken into consideration the provisions of the MTP Act and the decision of this Court rendered in case of Bhavikaben v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [Supra], for the reasons to follow hereinafter, the present petition deserves consideration." 6. Before delving into the facts of the instant case, some of the findings and observations made in the decision rendered in case of Bhavikaben v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [Supra] deserves reproduction at this stage - "3. In determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned in sub-section (2), account may be taken to 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. (b) Save as otherwise provided in clause (a), no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman. This Act permits termination of pregnancy where the length of pregnancy does not exceed twelve weeks or where such length of pregnancy exceeds twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if in the opinion of two registered medical practitioners, in cases of sub section [2] (b) of Section 3, continuance of pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of a pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health, or there is a substantial risk that if a child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. Explanation provides that 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. Pregnancy thus can be terminated by registered medical practitioner where it is not of more than twelve weeks. If it is of more than twelve weeks, but less than twenty weeks, two medical practitioners need to opine that continuance of pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of pregnancy woman or that it may cause grave injury to her physical or mental health. Likewise, physical or mental abnormalities of a child to be born is also one of the grounds for medical practitioners to terminate the pregnancy. Further, no pregnancy of any woman who has not attained the age of 18 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. The Apex Court in case of Chandrakant Jayantilal Suthar & Anr. v. State of Gujarat [Supra] had left it to the discretion of the medical practitioners, considering the peculiar facts, who were to decide after interaction with the victim, as termination of pregnancy was immediately necessary to save life of the victim herself, it did not want the Doctors to wait for the permission of the Court, if there was a unanimity amongst the doctors; otherwise directed the majority view to prevail. While so doing, the Court directed the Hospital authorities to take necessary tissue from the foetus for DNA identification. 7. In case of Suchita Srivastava & Anr. While so doing, the Court directed the Hospital authorities to take necessary tissue from the foetus for DNA identification. 7. In case of Suchita Srivastava & Anr. v. Chandigarh Administration, reported in 2009 (3) GLH 468, the Apex Court has laid down the theory of "best interest test" to hold that the Court is required to ascertain the course of action which would serve the best interests of the person in question. The Court must undertake a careful inquiry of the medical opinion on the feasibility of the pregnancy as well as social circumstances faced by the victim. The Court's decision should be guided by the interest of the victim alone and not those of stakeholders such as guardians or society in general. Apt it would be, to reproduce the observations made in para 19 of the decision, which reads thus - "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 faced 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 excise of reproductive rights." 8. Bearing in mind the decision of the Apex Court and keeping in mind the 'best interests' test as the parameter, in the opinion of this Court, in the present set of circumstances, careful inquiry of the medical opinion on the feasibility of the pregnancy as well as social circumstances faced by the victim, if are considered, this Court is of the opinion that termination of pregnancy requires to be permitted, which is in the best interest of the victim, particularly when the experts' opinion suggests that, "the victim's pregnancy can be terminated with slight risk and that such slight risk will be less, as compared to the mental agony and physical risk of continuing the pregnancy till the full term and delivering then." 9. Thus, bearing in mind the best interests parameter, it would be desirable to refer the victim girl to the Resident Medical Superintendent, New Civil Hospital at Surat who shall undertake necessary examination and start required procedure for termination of the pregnancy of the victim girl at the earliest. As suggested by the learned advocate for the applicant, the victim girl shall present herself tomorrow itself before the Resident Medical Officer, New Civil Hospital at Surat. 10. The Resident Medical Officer, New Civil Hospital shall handover, in a scientific manner, the tissues drawn from the foetus for DNA identification to the concerned Investigating Officer for onward transmission of the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 11. Once the termination is over, the victim girl shall continue to receive treatment for the length of period as deemed necessary by the senior most doctors of the team. The outcome and well being of the applicant shall be reported to this Court within one week. 12. Copy shall be provided to learned APP for onward communication. 13. With the above directions, this petition stands disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted today.