[POCSO] Victim's Emotional Well-Being Must Be Balanced With Rights Of Accused: Rajasthan HC Grants Parole To Father Convicted Of Raping Daughter

The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a petition for 15 days of parole filed by a father convicted of raping his daughter. The convict had absconded during his first parole which was granted in 2018 and his father had denied giving any undertaking for his conduct during his application for second parole in 2022.

The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman held that a balance needed to be achieved between the legislative intent of POCSO, that there should be minimal contact between the convict and the victim, and the statutory rights of the convict. Accordingly, it was directed that while being out on parole, the petitioner shall reside at a place that is away from the residence of the victim and shall not visit her.

“Court is mindful of the legislative intent of the POCSO Act which provides that the contact between the accused and the victim (in this case, the daughter of the accused) should be prevented in order to minimize the trauma experienced by the child. According to us, if the victim is faced with the presence of the convict-petitioner, it would have an adverse impact on her mental well-being and she would be forced to re-visit the trauma and be reminded of the incident which she would be trying hard to forget. But then, a balance has to be struck between the safety and emotional aspect of the victim and statutory rights of the accused. We are of the opinion that such balance would be achieved if the accused spends his time of parole at a place which is away from victim's residence.”

It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that though the jail conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory, the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur and Social Justice & Welfare department had not recommended parole due to the nature of the offence that had put the entire family under apprehension, and also because the petitioner absconded during his first parole in 2018.

However, the counsel submitted that the petitioner had successfully completed his second parole granted in 2022 while abiding by all the conditions for such parole. It was also submitted that the petitioner had already undergone a period of more than 13 years in jail.

The Court held that taking into account the earlier parole granted by the authority, the sentence of more than 13 years, and the fact that the petitioner had completed his second parole and returned back, it was appropriate to grant him 15 days of parole.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed by the Court, directing the petitioner to not reside near the victim's residence or even visit her residence.

Title: Shankar Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 204

Click Here To Read/Download Order