'His Right To Earn Livelihood Can't Be Curtailed': Allahabad HC Suspends Conviction, LI Of Govt Servant In Minor Daughter Rape Case

A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra-I also noted that the appeal is of the year 2024 and there is a remote possibility of it being heard in the near future due to the heavy backlog of cases.

The trial court had convicted the father-accused [Pravesh Singh Tomar] and sentenced him to life imprisonment in May last year under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and Sections 313, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

The court also imposed life sentences on his friend (Vimal Kumar) and his lawyer in the Divorce case (Sonu Tiwari). Aggrieved by the trial court's judgment, all three accused approached the High Court to challenge their convictions and sentences.

Case in brief

An FIR was lodged by the appellant's estranged wife (informant) on January 12, 2020. She alleged that her husband (appellant) had been sexually assaulting their daughter since she was in the 3rd standard (10 years old).

It was her case that when she discovered the abuse, she sent the daughter to a school in Jaipur. However, it was alleged that the appellant would take the girl from the school to hotels, where he and his friends (co-accused) would sexually assault her.

The FIR further contained serious allegations that the girl became pregnant and was forced to undergo an abortion and that the appellant's mother (the victim's grandmother) and second wife were also involved in the abuse.

The informant (appellant's wife) further alleged that on her protest, she and her daughter both were beaten and threatened by him, and therefore, they could not disclose the incident to anyone.

The trial court convicted the father (appellant), his friend (Vimal Kumar) and his advocate (Sonu Tiwari) and sentenced them to life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated May 20, 2024.

Arguments before the HC

The counsels for the appellant argued that the appellant was a victim of a 'wicked' design by his estranged wife (informant), as they had been living separately for years. It was apprised that his wife-informant is currently residing with her parents and that the appellant had no access to the daughter-victim.

Importantly, it was pointed out that the appellant had filed a divorce petition on January 4, 2020 and the FIR alleging rape was lodged just eight days later, on January 12, 2020, as a counterblast.

It was submitted that the testimony of the victim girl (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2) recorded during the trial was full of contradictions and improvements. The court's attention was also drawn to the medico-legal examination of the victim, which they claimed did reveal no external or internal injuries.

It was further contended that the victim had been tutored by her mother to support the false accusations. It was submitted that the appellant had taken his daughter to a boarding school to distance her from such influences.

However, when school authorities recovered a banned mobile phone from her possession, the appellant rebuked her, and, as a result, the daughter-victim became aggrieved and, under her mother's influence, falsely implicated him.

Importantly, it was argued that details about her alleged relationship with a boyfriend and references to "safe sex" in letters were placed on record; however, the trial court clearly ignored the significance of these letters while convicting him.

Additionally, it was argued that the appellant was prejudiced during the trial because the court posed lengthy and consolidated questions to him under Section 313 CrPC and he could not answer them effectively and explain the incriminating circumstances against him.

Finally, to rebut the allegations that the appellant took his daughter to hotels and places like a National Park for sexual assault, certain pictures were produced before the HC. It was claimed that these were family vacations taken with friends and relatives and the appellant had never taken his daughter alone to such places.

On the other hand, the AGA, though opposed to the prayer for bail of the applicant-appellant, could not dispute the contentions of the counsel for the appellant.

Against this backdrop, his sentence and conviction were suspended and he was granted bail. The bench directed its office to prepare the paper book within six weeks and to list his criminal appeal in due course.

Senior Counsel Sushil Shukla, assisted by Advocate Akshat Sinha, appeared for the appellant.

Advocate J Shubham appeared for the informant.