{"id":3478,"date":"2026-01-07T13:25:45","date_gmt":"2026-01-07T07:55:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=3478"},"modified":"2026-01-07T13:16:12","modified_gmt":"2026-01-07T07:46:12","slug":"allahabad-hc-father-pocso-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/allahabad-hc-father-pocso-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Minor Daughter Rape Case | Right To Earn Livelihood Cannot Be Crushed. Accusation Is Not Conviction: Allahabad HC Suspend POCSO Conviction of Govt Servant"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Allahabad High Court has suspended the conviction and sentence of a government servant convicted under the POCSO Act, holding that \u201cHis Right To Earn Livelihood Can’t Be Curtailed\u201d. The Court noted that the appeal may not be heard soon due to heavy pendency and granted bail during the appeal.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

PRAYAGRAJ:<\/em> The Allahabad High Court<\/a><\/strong> has suspended the conviction<\/strong> and sentence of a government employee<\/strong>, a Lekhpal by profession, who was convicted by the trial court for sexually assaulting his 16-year-old daughter<\/strong>. While granting bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal, the High Court clearly observed that \u201cHis Right To Earn Livelihood Can’t Be Curtailed\u201d<\/em><\/strong> merely because of his implication in the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Division Bench<\/strong> comprising Justice Siddharth<\/strong> and Justice Prashant Mishra-I<\/strong> took note of the fact that the criminal appeal is of the year 2024 and, due to the heavy backlog of criminal appeals, there is a remote possibility of it being heard in the near future. Keeping this practical reality in mind, the Court found it appropriate to suspend the sentence and conviction during the pendency of the appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trial court had earlier convicted the father-accused, Pravesh Singh Tomar, in May 2024 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act<\/a><\/strong> for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, along with Sections 313, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code<\/strong>. He was sentenced to life imprisonment<\/strong>. The trial court had also imposed life sentences on his friend, Vimal Kumar, and his advocate in the divorce proceedings, Sonu Tiwari.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Challenging the judgment of the trial court, all three convicted persons approached the High Court by way of criminal appeal. The prosecution case originated from an FIR<\/a> lodged on January 12, 2020, by the appellant\u2019s estranged wife. She alleged that her husband had been sexually assaulting their daughter since she was in the 3rd standard, around 10 years of age<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was further alleged that after she came to know about the abuse, she sent the girl to a school in Jaipur. Despite this, according to the FIR, the father would allegedly take the girl from the school to hotels, where he and his friends would sexually assault her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The FIR also contained serious allegations that the minor became pregnant and was forced to undergo an abortion. It was further alleged that the appellant\u2019s mother and his second wife<\/strong> were also involved in the abuse. The informant claimed that when she protested, both she and her daughter were beaten and threatened, due to which they could not disclose the incidents earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the hearing before the High Court, the counsel for the appellant argued that the entire case was the result of a \u2018wicked\u2019<\/em><\/strong> and motivated design by the estranged wife. It was submitted that the husband and wife had been living separately for many years and that the appellant had no access to the daughter for most of her life<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The defence strongly 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<\/strong>, as a counterblast to the divorce proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The defence further argued that the testimonies of the victim (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2) were full of contradictions and material improvements<\/strong>. The medico-legal examination of the victim did not show any external or internal injuries<\/strong>. It was also argued that the victim had been tutored by her mother to support false allegations<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The appellant\u2019s counsel submitted that the father had taken the daughter to a reputed boarding school to keep her away from negative influences. However, when school authorities recovered a banned mobile phone from her possession, the appellant reprimanded her. According to the defence, this incident caused resentment in the mind of the girl, and under the influence of her mother, she falsely implicated her father<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was also argued that letters written by the victim herself, containing references to her relationship with a boyfriend<\/strong> and mentions of \u201csafe sex<\/em><\/strong>\u201d, were brought on record. Despite this, the trial court allegedly ignored the significance of these letters while appreciating the evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another important argument raised was that the appellant was prejudiced during the trial as the court put lengthy and consolidated questions to him under Section 313 of the CrPC,<\/strong> making it difficult for him to properly explain the alleged incriminating circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To counter the allegations that the appellant had taken his daughter alone to hotels and tourist places for sexual assault, the defence produced photographs before the High Court. These photographs<\/strong>, it was claimed, showed family vacations with friends and relatives, and not private trips with the daughter alone.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate opposed the grant of bail but could not effectively dispute the factual submissions made by the appellant\u2019s counsel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After considering all these aspects, the High Court observed that there are more than two hundred criminal appeals listed daily and it is not humanly possible to hear all of them expeditiously. In this background, the Court held that there is a remote possibility of the appeal being decided in the near future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, the High Court suspended the conviction and sentence of the appellant and granted him bail during the pendency of the appeal<\/strong>. The Court specifically noted that since the appellant is a government servant, his right to earn his livelihood for survival<\/strong> cannot be curtailed because of his implication in the case. The Court directed preparation of the paper book within six weeks and ordered that the criminal appeal be listed for hearing in due course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Allahabad
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law & Section<\/strong><\/td>Brief Meaning<\/strong><\/td>Applicability in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
Section 6, POCSO Act<\/strong><\/td>Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child<\/td>Used by trial court to award life imprisonment to the appellant<\/td><\/tr>
Section 3\/4, POCSO Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Defines and punishes penetrative sexual assault<\/td>Part of original FIR allegations<\/td><\/tr>
Section 313 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Causing miscarriage without woman\u2019s consent<\/td>Allegation relating to forced abortion<\/td><\/tr>
Section 323 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt<\/td>Alleged physical assault on wife and daughter<\/td><\/tr>
Section 504 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace<\/td>Alleged verbal abuse<\/td><\/tr>
Section 506 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Criminal intimidation<\/td>Alleged threats to silence informant and victim<\/td><\/tr>
Section 376-D IPC<\/strong><\/td>Gang rape<\/td>Initially invoked in FIR against appellant and co-accused<\/td><\/tr>
Section 164 CrPC<\/strong><\/td>Recording of confession or statement before Magistrate<\/td>Victim\u2019s statement recorded under this provision<\/td><\/tr>
Section 313 CrPC<\/strong><\/td>Power of court to examine accused<\/td>Defence argued prejudice due to lengthy and consolidated questions<\/td><\/tr>
Section 125 CrPC<\/strong><\/td>Maintenance to wife and children<\/td>Earlier maintenance litigation between parties<\/td><\/tr>
Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Restitution of conjugal rights<\/td>Filed by appellant in earlier matrimonial dispute<\/td><\/tr>
Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Maintenance pendente lite<\/td>Sought by wife during matrimonial proceedings<\/td><\/tr>
Section 320 CrPC<\/strong><\/td>Compounding of offences<\/td>Earlier cross-cases between families ended in compromise<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Case Summary<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n