The Delhi High Court has suspended the life sentence of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case, citing time already served and prima facie observations while hearing his appeal under the CrPC.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a crucial development, the Delhi High Court has suspended the sentence of Kuldeep Singh Sengar, former BJP MLA, in the high-profile Unnao rape case. The decision was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar.
Sengar had filed an application under Section 389(1) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking regular suspension of his sentence during the pendency of his appeal. The Court’s order marks a notable update in a case that has drawn national attention.
In its judgment, the Court noted:
“In the opinion of this Court, at this stage, being satisfied that (i) offence under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act is not made out against the Appellant on account of him not falling within the definition of a ‘public servant’, (ii) only an offence under Section 3 of the POCSO Act would be made out, and (iii) looking at the fact that the Appellant has already undergone about 7 years and 5 months under incarceration… this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence of the Appellant.”
Background of the Case
According to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the incident occurred on June 4, 2017, when the victim was allegedly induced by an accomplice to visit Sengar’s residence under the pretext of a job offer. The victim claimed she was then forcibly raped by Sengar and threatened with reporting the crime.
Following the complaint, an FIR was filed after the local police in Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, reportedly did not take immediate action. The trial court convicted Sengar under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 376, 363, and 366, and under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Sections 5(c) and 6.
The trial court had sentenced Sengar to life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 25 lakhs and additional compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the victim’s mother.
High Court’s Reasoning for Suspension
The Delhi High Court’s suspension order was based on several key factors:
1. POCSO Act Interpretation
The Court observed that Sengar did not fall under the definition of a “public servant” as per Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act, limiting the applicability of aggravated charges.
“This being a prima facie observation, this Court does not deem it fit to go into the merits of the case as to whether the Appellant could be then held guilty of offence under Section 3 of the POCSO Act or not.”
2. Time Already Served
Sengar had already undergone approximately 7 years and 5 months of incarceration, which exceeded the minimum sentence of seven years under Section 4 of the POCSO Act before its 2019 amendment.
“The number of years already undergone in incarceration is a very major factor while considering an Application under Section 389 of CrPC and the Court cannot close its eyes to the fact that Sengar has already undergone about 7 years and 5 months under incarceration.”
3. Prima Facie Assessment
The Court made a preliminary observation that Sengar could potentially be held guilty under Section 3 of the POCSO Act, but did not address the full merits of the appeal at this stage.
The Bench emphasized that time already served in custody is a crucial factor under Section 389 CrPC while considering suspension applications.
Directions for Victim Protection
While suspending Sengar’s sentence, the Court issued strict directions for victim protection:
- CRPF cover will continue for the victim.
- The local DCP is personally responsible for supervising protection measures.
- The Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) is tasked with ensuring adequate accommodation and safety for the victim.
The Court made it clear that the victim has the right to approach the Court for further protection if required. While suspending the sentence, the Court issued strict directions to ensure the victim’s safety:
“The concerned DCP of the area where the Victim is currently residing, is directed to personally ensure and supervise the protection given to the Victim/Survivor during the pendency of the Appeal… The DCW is responsible to ensure that the Victim is provided with sufficient accommodation and such arrangement is directed to be continued till further orders.”
The Court also clarified:
“The Courts cannot keep a person in custody being apprehensive that the police/paramilitary may not do their job properly, as such an observation… would undermine the laudable work of our police/paramilitary forces.”
The Court directed Sengar to furnish a security of Rs. 15 lakhs with three sureties of the same amount, to be approved by the concerned Jail Superintendent.
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocates N Hariharan, Manish Vashisht, Advocates SPM Tripathi, Amit Sinha, Deepak Sharma, Rahul Poonia, Ambuj Singh, Ashish Tiwari, Aishwarya Senger, Gaurav Kumar, Saurabh Dwivedi, Punya Rekha, Angara, Vasundhara N, Aman Akhtar, Sana Singh, Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Arjan Singh Mandla, Gauri Ramachandran, Aishwarya Sengar, Vedansh Vashisht, and Swapan Singhal
Respondent: SPP Anubha Bhardwaj, Advocates Vijay Mishra, Ananya Shamshery, Urvi Mohan, Mehmood Pracha, Sanawar, Jatin Bhatt, Kshitij Singh, and Kumail Abbas.
Case Title:
Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. Central Bureau of Investigation
CRL.A. 53/2020
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Unnao Rape