Balance Must Be Struck Between Safety & Emotional Aspect Of Victim And Statutory Rights Of Accused: Rajasthan HC Grants Parole To Rape Accused
|The Rajasthan High Court granted parole to an accused convicted of raping his daughter while observing that a balance has to be struck between the safety and emotional aspect of the victim with the statutory rights of an accused.
The Bench ordered the convict to spend his period of parole at a place away from the victim’s residence after noting that the presence of the convict near the victim would have an “adverse impact on her mental well-being” and she would be “forced to re-visit the trauma…which she would be trying hard to forget.”
A Division Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman observed, “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.”
Amicus Curiae Ramdev Rajpurohit appeared for the petitioner, while GA-cum-AAG Anil Joshi represented the respondents.
The convict had filed a petition seeking release on second parole for 15 days. The convict had argued that he had abided by the previous parole conditions and had successfully completed the same.
The Court stated that it was mindful of the legislative intent of the POCSO Act which provided that the contact between an accused and a victim (in this case, the daughter of the convict) should be prevented in order to minimize the trauma experienced by the victim.
“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,” the Bench remarked.
Therefore, the Court released the convict on 15 days' parole in accordance with the provisions of Parole Rules. “The Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur shall be at liberty to impose other adequate and reasonable conditions to ensure return of the convict to the custody after availing the parole,” the Court directed.
The Bench clarified that the parole granted could be cancelled if the convict indulged in any kind of offence or if any report was lodged against him during that period.
Consequently, the Court ordered that “the convict-petitioner shall spend his period of parole at a place, which is away from the victim’s residence and he shall not visit the place, where the victim resides.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:31983-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Amicus Curiae Ramdev Rajpurohit
Respondents: GA-cum-AAG Anil Joshi; Advocate Rajat Chhaparwal