Allahabad High Court Suspends POCSO Conviction of Lekhpal, Cites Right to Livelihood Amid Appeal Backlog

The Allahabad High Court has suspended the conviction and life sentence of a government employee—a Lekhpal by profession—who was convicted by a trial court for sexually assaulting his 16-year-old daughter.

Granting him bail during the pendency of his criminal appeal, the High Court categorically observed that a person’s right to earn a livelihood cannot be curtailed merely because of his implication in a case, particularly when the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra-I took judicial notice of the heavy backlog of criminal appeals before the Court.

The Bench noted that more than 200 criminal appeals are listed every day, making it humanly impossible to hear all matters expeditiously.

In these circumstances, the Court held that there was a remote possibility of the appeal being decided in the near future, justifying suspension of conviction and sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

Background of the Case

The trial court had, in May 2024, convicted the appellant, Pravesh Singh Tomar, under the POCSO Act (Section 6 – aggravated penetrative sexual assault), along with Sections 313, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Life sentences were also imposed on two co-accused—his friend, Vimal Kumar, and his advocate in divorce proceedings, Sonu Tiwari.

The prosecution case originated from an FIR lodged on January 12, 2020, by the appellant’s estranged wife.

She alleged that the appellant had been sexually assaulting their daughter since she was about 10 years old and that the minor was later taken to hotels where she was abused by the appellant and others.

The FIR further alleged that the girl became pregnant and was forced to undergo an abortion, and that other family members were complicit.

Arguments Before the High Court

Appearing for the appellant, Sri Sushil Shukla, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Akshat Sinha and Ms Sanyukta Singh, assailed the trial court judgment as being the result of a motivated and malicious prosecution arising out of matrimonial discord.

The defence submitted that the husband and wife had been living separately for several years and that the appellant had little to no access to the child.

It was argued that the appellant had filed a divorce petition on January 4, 2020, and that the FIR alleging sexual assault was lodged just eight days later, on January 12, 2020, as a retaliatory “counterblast” to the divorce proceedings.

Counsel further contended that the testimonies of the victim (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2) suffered from serious contradictions and material improvements.

The medico-legal examination did not reveal any external or internal injuries, and it was argued that the victim had been tutored to falsely implicate her father.

The defence also highlighted letters allegedly written by the victim herself, containing references to a boyfriend and expressions such as “safe sex,” which, according to counsel, were ignored by the trial court.

It was additionally argued that the appellant was prejudiced during trial as the court put lengthy, consolidated questions to him under Section 313 of the CrPC, impairing his ability to properly respond.

To counter allegations that the appellant had taken the child alone to hotels and tourist locations, the defence produced photographs before the High Court, claiming these depicted family vacations with relatives and friends rather than private trips.

Opposing the appeal and the grant of bail, the State was represented by the Learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.), while the informant was represented by Sri J. Shubham.

However, the Court noted that the prosecution was unable to effectively controvert several of the factual submissions advanced by the defence.

High Court’s Findings

After considering the totality of circumstances, the High Court observed that prolonged incarceration during an indefinitely delayed appeal would amount to punishment without final adjudication.

The Bench specifically underscored that the appellant is a government servant and that his right to earn his livelihood for survival cannot be curtailed solely due to his implication while the appeal remains pending.

Accordingly, the Court suspended the conviction and sentence, granted bail to the appellant, directed preparation of the paper book within six weeks, and ordered that the appeal be listed for hearing in due course.

Case Details

• Case Title: Pravesh Singh Tomar vs State of Uttar Pradesh & 3 Others
• Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 5899 of 2024
• Lower Court: Special Sessions Trial No. 153 of 2020
• Police Station: Kotwali Fatehgarh
• District: Farrukhabad
• Date of Order: 12 December 2025

Counsel for Appellant:

• Sri Sushil Shukla, Senior Advocate
• Assisted by Sri Akshat Sinha
• Ms Sanyukta Singh

Counsel for Respondents:

• Learned Additional Government Advocate
• Sri J. Shubham (for Informant)

Key Takeaways

• Conviction is not the final truth: Appellate courts retain full authority to re-examine trial verdicts.
• Right to livelihood is constitutional: Economic destruction cannot precede final adjudication.
• Delay equals injustice: Prolonged appeal pendency undermines the fairness of incarceration.
• Bail remains the rule: Even in serious offences, liberty may be protected where doubts exist.

#AllahabadHighCourt #POCSOAct #RightToLivelihood #CriminalAppeal #BailJurisprudence #JudicialDelay #IndianJudiciary #RuleOfLaw