SHAKUNTALA W/O BHOGAPPA NAYAK DESAI V. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 2025:KHC-K:5916:

DATE: 09/10/2025

COURT: High Court of Karnataka

BENCH: Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum

FACTS:

The petitioner, who was serving a sentence after conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, was granted parole for 30 days on 09.03.2022, which was later extended by another 60 days. She was required to surrender before the Central Prison, Vijayapur, on or before 08.06.2022, but failed to do so. Consequently, the prison authorities initiated proceedings against her under Section 58 of the Karnataka Prisons (Amendment) Act, 2022, for violation of parole conditions and unauthorized absence from lawful custody. The Trial Court, after examining ten witnesses and thirty-two documents, held that the petitioner had wilfully failed to surrender, convicting her under Section 58 and sentencing her to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000.

The petitioner’s appeal before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 69/2023, was dismissed. The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, observing that the findings of the Trial Court were well-reasoned and supported by evidence. The petitioner then filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court, contending that her failure to surrender was unintentional and due to severe health complications during the Covid-19 pandemic. The State, however, argued that no credible medical evidence was produced to substantiate her claims, and both lower courts had rightly held her guilty of violating parole conditions.

ISSUES:

The central issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner’s failure to surrender after the expiry of her extended parole period could be considered wilful and punishable under Section 58 of the Karnataka Prisons (Amendment) Act, 2022, and whether any mitigating circumstances, such as health-related incapacity during the pandemic, could justify interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts. It held that the petitioner had failed to provide any credible evidence to support her claim of medical incapacity and that her conduct amounted to a deliberate violation of parole conditions under Section 58 of the Act. The Court also issued detailed guidelines for prison authorities to ensure convicts are adequately informed about parole conditions and the legal consequences of failing to comply, emphasizing the need for awareness and procedural clarity in parole administration across Karnataka.

The High Court observed that the petitioner had availed the benefit of parole twice and was duty-bound to surrender upon its expiry. Despite her claim of illness, she produced no medical documents or corroborative proof to establish her inability to report to prison. In the absence of such evidence, the Court concurred with the findings of the lower courts that her non-surrender was deliberate and constituted a clear breach of lawful custody, attracting punishment under Section 58 of the Karnataka Prisons (Amendment) Act, 2022. The Court further emphasized that revisional jurisdiction under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless there is a manifest error or perversity, neither of which was present in this case.

Beyond affirming the conviction, the Court undertook a broader judicial exercise to address recurring parole violations. It noted that many convicts remain unaware of the stringent consequences of failing to surrender, often leading to fresh prosecutions and extended imprisonment. To remedy this systemic issue, the Court issued guidelines mandating that all prison superintendents must brief parolees about the conditions of release and the legal repercussions of non-compliance in a language understood by them. It directed that written undertakings be obtained, awareness pamphlets distributed, and a Parole Compliance Register maintained. The Court also clarified that sentences under Section 58 must run consecutively, not concurrently, with the original sentence, as parole violation constitutes a separate offence. These directions aim to strengthen procedural accountability and promote informed compliance with parole conditions, thereby maintaining the sanctity of judicial and correctional processes.

ANALYSIS:

This case underscores the judiciary’s firm stance on ensuring strict compliance with parole conditions and the sanctity of lawful custody. The High Court’s affirmation of the petitioner’s conviction demonstrates that parole is a conditional liberty, not an absolute right. By failing to surrender after the expiry of her extended parole, without producing any credible medical evidence to justify her absence, the petitioner was rightly found guilty under Section 58 of the Karnataka Prisons (Amendment) Act, 2022. The Court’s decision highlights the principle that mere allegations of illness or personal difficulty cannot override statutory obligations, particularly when the offence involves breach of custodial discipline. Furthermore, the judgment reinforces that revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to reassess factual findings unless there is clear evidence of illegality or perversity, thereby maintaining the sanctity of lower court decisions supported by proper evidence.

Beyond the individual case, the judgment is significant for its systemic reforms in the administration of parole. Recognizing the recurring pattern of parole violations due to lack of awareness, the Court issued comprehensive guidelines aimed at improving communication, documentation, and accountability within the prison system. By mandating briefing sessions, written undertakings, awareness pamphlets, and strict record maintenance, the Court sought to balance punitive enforcement with procedural fairness and transparency. Importantly, its clarification that sentences for parole violations must run consecutively reinforces the deterrent nature of Section 58, discouraging misuse of parole privileges. Thus, the ruling not only reaffirms the rule of law but also advances a more structured and informed correctional framework in Karnataka.