Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pushp Raj vs State Of H.P. And Others on 25 February, 2021
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Ravi Malimath
1 HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.260 of 2020 Decided on:25.02.2021 Pushp Raj ..........Petitioner .
Versus State of H.P. and others ........Respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner :
Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur and Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Mr. Adash rK. Sharma, Ms. Ritta Goswami and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals.
____________________________________________________ Ravi Malimath, Judge (Oral).
The case of the petitioner is that he, after an order of conviction, had been imposed a sentence punishable under Section 376 IPC for a period of twenty years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year; and for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months; and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2021 20:16:02 :::HCHP 2
also for the offence punishable for the contravention of the provision of Sections 5(g) & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, he was sentenced under Section 6 of the ibid .
Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months alongwith co-accused.
2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.165 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. By the judgment dated 10.11.2020, the order of conviction was upheld, however, the sentence of 20 years, imposed upon the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376-D IPC, was reduced from the period of 20 years to 12 years. The petitioner is presently undergoing sentence.
Thereafter, the petitioner applied for parole on the ground that he has two small children and also his wife and there is no body to look after them. The said request of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 03.06.2019. Thereafter, another application was filed by the petitioner, seeking for grant of parole and the same was also rejected by the impugned order dated 18.05.2020 (Annexure P-3). Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed.
::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2021 20:16:02 :::HCHP 33. Learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that request of the petitioner for parole is required to be granted, as it was wrongly rejected and that the refusal to grant of parole has .
resulted in miscarriage of justice. The respondents-State has filed a reply, enclosing various documents. By placing reliance on the same, it is contended that during the investigation with regard to the grant of parole, which has been reported by the Up-Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Lot, that the victim's father Sh. Parmanand has raised an objection in writing that there is a danger to their lives, in case, parole is granted to the petitioner. The local police has also stated in its report that there might be a life threat to the victim's family, in case, the parole is granted and therefore, grant of parole is not recommended. In view of these reasons, the request of the petitioner for granting parole, was rejected.
4. On considering the contentions and the relevant material, we do not find any legal infirmity nor any error on facts that calls for any interference in the impugned order. The parole has been rejected on the ground of a life threat to the family of the victim. The victim was hardly aged about 13 years, when the offence was committed.
::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2021 20:16:02 :::HCHP 45. Be that as it may, since there is an apprehension of a life threat to the victim's family, the same would constitute a sufficient ground to deny parole to the petitioner, as in case the .
parole is granted, then the lives of the victim's family would be at peril. If any untoward incident would happen, there would be a grave miscarriage of justice. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground to grant parole to the petitioner. The reasons assigned for rejecting the plea of the petitioner for parole, are just and appropriate and do not call for any interference.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice (Ravi Malimath) February 25, 2021. Judge (Yashwant) ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2021 20:16:02 :::HCHP