JUDGMENT : Manish Pitale, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that since the allegations leveled by the petitioner are in respect of the alleged sexual assault, the identity of the petitioner needs to be concealed, therefore, the petitioner is referred to as “ABC”. The Registry is directed to maintain the record accordingly. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to permit termination of pregnancy of her minor daughter aged about seventeen years and few months. The said daughter of the petitioner was victim of alleged rape resulting in to the pregnancy which is now of more than twenty weeks duration and therefore petitioner has been compelled to knock the doors of this Court. 4. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was constrained to cause registration of an FIR on 02.03.2021 against accused person for offences under section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”), for the sexual assault and rape suffered by her minor daughter. As per the FIR, the daughter of the petitioner was aged about seventeen years and two months old when the incident of rape took place, resulting in pregnancy. According to the petitioner, she and her husband discovered about pregnancy of her daughter when she missed her menstrual cycles for about four months and she was required to be taken to the doctor. Since the daughter of the petitioner is mentally challenged, the fact about the said rape and consequent pregnancy could not be discovered earlier. After she was taken to the doctor and the pregnancy was revealed, the daughter of the petitioner divulged how she was repeatedly sexually assaulted and raped by the accused, resulting in the pregnancy. 5. As a consequence, aforesaid FIR dated 02.03.2021 stood registered against the accused. Since the pregnancy of the daughter of the petitioner exceeded twenty weeks, she had to approach this Court. Copy of the FIR along with sonography report and certificate of the doctor stating that the daughter of the petitioner as on 06.03.2021 was pregnant of 20.6 weeks have been annexed with the petition. 6. Since the pregnancy of the daughter of the petitioner exceeded twenty weeks, she had to approach this Court. Copy of the FIR along with sonography report and certificate of the doctor stating that the daughter of the petitioner as on 06.03.2021 was pregnant of 20.6 weeks have been annexed with the petition. 6. When this petition was listed before this Court on 10.03.2021, notices were issued to the respondents and respondent No.2 i.e. the Civil Surgeon of Ratnagiri District Hospital was directed to constitute a Medical Board/ Committee by invoking section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1971”). The said committee was directed to medically examine the daughter of the petitioner and send the report to the learned APP appearing for the respondents, so that it would be made available before this Court for perusal. 7. When this writ petition was taken up for hearing, learned APP tendered across the Bar a copy of the report in sealed envelope of the committee, same is taken on record. In said report, it is recommended by the committee that medical termination of pregnancy could be undertaken on humanitarian grounds as the pregnancy was the result of alleged sexual assault of the victim who is less than eighteen years of age and suffers from mild mental disability. 8. Mr. Karansingh B. Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court ought to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction to allow the prayers made in the writ petition. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act of 1971 to submit that in view of the aforesaid report of the committee constituted in terms of order dated 10.03.2021 passed by this Court, present writ petition deserves to be allowed and a direction needs to be given to the respondent No.2 to carry out medical termination of pregnancy of the daughter of the petitioner. Additionally, learned counsel submits that since the daughter of the petitioner is victim of rape resulting in the pregnancy, the respondent No.1 ought to be directed to collect the tissue and blood sample of the fetus for conducting DNA tests that would be part of evidence during prosecution of the accused in terms of the aforesaid FIR registered on 02.03.2021. Additionally, learned counsel submits that since the daughter of the petitioner is victim of rape resulting in the pregnancy, the respondent No.1 ought to be directed to collect the tissue and blood sample of the fetus for conducting DNA tests that would be part of evidence during prosecution of the accused in terms of the aforesaid FIR registered on 02.03.2021. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of (1) Rubina Kasam Phansopkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2020 SCC Online Bom. 765, (2) “ABC” through her Guardian Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2018 (4) Mh.L.J. 374 , (3) Pramod A. Solanke Vs. Dean of B. J. Govt. Medical College & Sasoon Hospital, Pune, 2020 SCC Online Bom. 639 and (4) Z Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2018) 11 SCC 572 as also on (5) Suchita Srivastava and another Vs. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1 . 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that daughter of the petitioner deserved to be compensated in terms of the victim compensation scheme framed by the Respondent – State under section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to “The Manodhairya Scheme” framed by the Respondent - State as per Government Resolution dated 01.08.2017, for payment of compensation to victims like the daughter of the petitioner herein. On this basis, it was submitted that maximum amount of compensation payable under the said scheme ought to be directed to be paid to the daughter of the petitioner. 10. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent - State submitted that the committee constituted in terms of the order passed by this Court had recommended medical termination of pregnancy of the daughter of the petitioner. He further submitted that although the pregnancy has crossed the duration of twenty weeks, this Court mal pass orders in terms of the law brought to the notice of this Court as per the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 11. Before considering the facts of the present case and the prayers made in the present writ petition, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act of 1971 and the law laid down in that context. 11. Before considering the facts of the present case and the prayers made in the present writ petition, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act of 1971 and the law laid down in that context. Sections, 3, 4 and 5 of the Act of 1971 provide for contingencies in which pregnancies mal be terminated by registered medical practitioners. Section 3(2) provides that a pregnancy mal be terminated by a registered medical practitioner where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twelve weeks or 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 the opinion formed in good faith that continuance of the pregnancy involves a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or it may cause grave injury to her physical or mental health. Explanation-1 to the aforesaid provision is of significance in the present case, because it specifically states that where any pregnancy is alleged 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. 12. It is clear from the said provision that termination of pregnancy can be carried out, if the contingencies mentioned in section 3 of the Act of 1971 are satisfied. But, since there is a limit of the length of pregnancy specified upto twenty weeks, termination of pregnancy whose length is beyond twenty weeks needs to be considered in the facts and circumstances in the present case. In the case of the Rubina Kasam Phansopkar (supra), this Court took note of the position of law that in certain cases Superior Courts could direct medical termination of pregnancy whose length is beyond twenty weeks. In order to do so, the Court is required to call for a report from a committee duly constituted to examine the question as to whether a pregnancy beyond twenty weeks could be permitted to be terminated. In the said case, after having recognized such settled position of law that a Constitutional Court while exercising writ jurisdiction could grant such permission, after calling for report from Medical Board comprising of suitably qualified doctors, on the facts of the said case this Court declined to grant permission for termination of the pregnancy. In the said case, after having recognized such settled position of law that a Constitutional Court while exercising writ jurisdiction could grant such permission, after calling for report from Medical Board comprising of suitably qualified doctors, on the facts of the said case this Court declined to grant permission for termination of the pregnancy. Nonetheless, the power available with this Court to grant such permission was recognized. 13. In the case of “ABC” through her Guardian (supra), in a similar situation, where the victim person was a minor girl and victim of rape, this Court called for a report from a committee of doctors of the Government Medical College and upon recommendation of such committee for medical termination of pregnancy passed an order allowing the writ petition. Similarly, in the case of Pramod A. Solanke (supra), this Court after calling for report of a Medical Board permitted termination of pregnancy which was twenty four weeks and three days of length. In the said case also the pregnant girl was minor and a victim of rape. In the case of Sangita Sandip Dahilkar (supra) also, this Court granted permission for medical termination of pregnancy the length of which was beyond twenty weeks after calling for report from a committee which recommended such termination of pregnancy. 14. Thus, it is settled position of law that in certain circumstances, this Court being a Constitutional Court has the power under writ jurisdiction to direct termination of pregnancy, the length of which being beyond twenty weeks. The requirement of law is that a report needs to be called from a committee of qualified medical professionals of a Government facility as to the mental and physical health of the pregnant girl/woman and recommendation on the question of termination of such pregnancy, length of which is beyond twenty weeks. It is for this reason that while issuing notice on 10.03.2021, we had directed the respondent No.2 – Civil Surgeon, Ratnagiri District Hospital to constitute a committee to medically examine the victim i.e. minor daughter of the petitioner herein and to send a report to this Court. In pursuance of the said order, a report dated 12.03.2021 has been placed before this Court. The members of the Medical Board/Committee who reviewed the case of daughter of the petitioner in the present case were as followed :- S. No. Name Designation Specialization Signature 1. Dr. In pursuance of the said order, a report dated 12.03.2021 has been placed before this Court. The members of the Medical Board/Committee who reviewed the case of daughter of the petitioner in the present case were as followed :- S. No. Name Designation Specialization Signature 1. Dr. Sanghamitra M. Gawade Civil Surgeon Ratnagiri M.S.ENT Sd/- 2. Dr. Vinod Sangvikar Gynecologist M.B.B.S., D.G.O. Sd/- 3. Dr. Nitinkumar Shah Psychiatrist M.B.B.S., D.P.M. Sd/- 4. Dr. Shubhangi Bedekar Gynecologist M.B.B.S., D.G.O.D.N.B. (Obgy) Sd/- 5. Dr. Vijay Surygandh Paediatrcian M.B.B.S., M.D. Sd/- 15. It is stated in the said report submitted by the aforesaid Medical Board that the daughter of the petitioner is a minor, who is pregnant, as a consequence of rape and that on IQ testing, she has been found to be having mild intellectual disability. After recording the investigations conducted on the daughter of the petitioner, it is recorded that she is physically fit for the termination of the pregnancy and the recommendation of the Medical Board reads as follows :- “Pregnancy is caused by sexual assault, her age is less than 18 years. She has mild intellectual disability. On humanitarian ground MTP is recommended.” 16. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, it becomes clear that the Medical Board/Committee constituted on the order of this Court has examined the daughter of the petitioner and recommended medical termination of pregnancy, although the length of such pregnancy is beyond twenty weeks. It is evident from the material on record i.e. FIR dated 02.03.2021, the statements made in the present writ petition as also contents of the aforesaid report dated 12.03.2021 submitted by the Medical Board that the daughter of the petitioner is a minor who is pregnant due to alleged sexual assault and rape and she is found to be suffering a mild intellectual disability. Explanation-1 to section 3(2) of the Act of 1971 provides that it is to be presumed that pregnancy alleged to have been caused by rape and the anguish caused by such rape constitutes a grave injury to mental health of such girl/woman. We are of the opinion that therefore, direction can be issued for medical termination of pregnancy of the daughter of the petitioner, although length of the pregnancy is beyond twenty weeks, because continuance of such pregnancy would result in grave injury to the mental health of the daughter of the petitioner. 17. We are of the opinion that therefore, direction can be issued for medical termination of pregnancy of the daughter of the petitioner, although length of the pregnancy is beyond twenty weeks, because continuance of such pregnancy would result in grave injury to the mental health of the daughter of the petitioner. 17. At the same time, since the pregnancy of the daughter of the petitioner is on account of alleged rape suffered by her and investigation and further proceedings are being undertaken, it is necessary to give consequential directions also. The FIR bearing C.R. No.31 of 21 dated 02.03.2021 registered at Rajapur Police Station, District Ratnagiri, records the statement of the petitioner that her daughter was repeatedly sexually assaulted and raped by the accused, as a result of which offences under section 376(3) of the IPC and sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act were registered. It is necessary that tissue and blood samples of the fetus upon termination of pregnancy need to be preserved for DNA tests and other such tests that mal have to be carried out to be utilized during trial of the accused in pursuance of registration of the aforesaid FIR. We propose to grant appropriate direction in that regard. 18. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has correctly invited our attention to Government Resolution dated 01.08.2017, whereby “The Manodhairya Scheme” has been framed by the respondent – State. This is in tune with the victim compensation scheme contemplated under section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code. A perusal of the said Government Resolution shows that in cases where victims of rape are mentally challenged and they are minors, compensation of upto Rs.10,00,000/- is payable from the amount available with the District Legal Services Authority (“DLSA”). In the said Government Resolution amounts are payable immediately and at various stages to such victim. Therefore, it would be appropriate that the respondent takes up case of the daughter of the petitioner immediately in terms of the said scheme applicable to children of sexual assault as per the POCSO Act, which includes the victims who are mentally challenged. The police authorities need to place all requisite papers as per the said scheme before the DLSA and consequent action needs to be immediately taken. 19. The police authorities need to place all requisite papers as per the said scheme before the DLSA and consequent action needs to be immediately taken. 19. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in following terms :- (i) The respondent No.2 is directed to medically terminate the pregnancy of the daughter of the petitioner forthwith at the Civil Hospital, Ratnagiri District,. (ii) The respondent No.2 is directed to collect tissue and blood samples of the fetus for conducting DNA and other tests. (iii) The Investigating Officer conducting investigation in the aforesaid FIR shall ensure that the aforesaid tissue and blood samples are forwarded to the concerned Forensic Laboratory for DNA tests and other relevant medical tests. The said samples and report shall be preserved for the purpose of trial. (iv) The respondent No.1 is directed to immediately place the FIR, medical report and other papers, including statement of the daughter of the petitioner under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, before the DLSA for payment of amounts to her under the Government Resolution dated 01.08.2017 i.e. “The Manodhairya Scheme”. (v) Upon receipt of such papers, DLSA is directed to immediately process the said papers for payment of compensation to the daughter of the petitioner at various stages contemplated under the aforesaid scheme. It shall be ensured that such payments are made at the earliest and without any delay in the matter. 20. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.