Today, On 29th December, Senior Advocate Mehmood Pracha, for the Unnao rape case survivor, says, “This should not be called victory, but we have got a little time to breathe.” He adds CBI did not consult them, so judgment isn’t a victory.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court stayed the order of the Delhi High Court that had suspended the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case involving a minor girl.
A three-judge vacation bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the Central Bureau of Investigation’s appeal against the suspension of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s life sentence .
Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Delhi Govt to Report on Threat to Unnao Rape Victim’s Mother
The apex Court took a strong view while examining the challenge to the Delhi High Court’s order suspending the life sentence of the convict in the Unnao rape case.
After hearing arguments, the Supreme Court issued notice and CJI Surya Kant announced,
“Notice issued. We have heard SG Mehta for the CBI and senior counsel for the convict. Several substantial questions of law arise in this case. The counter-affidavit shall be filed within four weeks. While the Court generally does not stay release orders without hearing the person concerned, given the peculiar facts that the convict is already serving a sentence for a separate offence, we stay the operation of the Delhi High Court order dated December 23, 2025, and the respondent shall not be released pursuant to that order.”
This decision has brought temporary relief to the side of the survivor, even as the legal fight continues.
After the Supreme Court’s order, Advocate Mehmood Pracha, who represents the Unnao rape case survivor, shared a strong reaction.
He said,
“I can assure the victims that we have got a small relief. This should not be called victory, but we have got a little time to breathe. CBI took a stand on a very limited point and did not raise our strongest grounds of argument. CBI did not consult us at all. There is so much evidence in favour of the victim that any court would give a verdict in her support… The court did not hear us on the main merits. CBI has just discussed the iceberg of the case; we have the entire matter with us… CBI did not make us a party in this case. We cannot treat this judgement as a victory for the victim…”
Earlier, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) appealed to the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s decision to suspend the life sentence of Kuldeep Singh Sengar, a former Uttar Pradesh BJP MLA, in the 2017 Unnao rape case involving a minor girl.
The CBI contests the High Court’s ruling, which suspended Sengar’s sentence under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure while his criminal appeal is still pending.
In December 2019, Sengar was convicted by a trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment for rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
The trial court noted that there were no mitigating factors and emphasized that, as a public servant in a democratic society, Sengar betrayed the trust of the people.
While his appeal is still ongoing, Sengar sought suspension of his sentence and bail, which the High Court granted on December 23. The suspension was based on the Court’s preliminary finding that the charge of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act was not applicable in his case.
Earlier, on December 23, the Delhi High Court suspended Sengar’s sentence in relation to the 2017 case. The survivor, a minor, was reportedly kidnapped and raped by Sengar between June 11 and June 20, 2017, after which she was sold for Rs.60,000 before being recovered at the Maakhi police station.
According to Section 5 of the POCSO Act, the definition of aggravated penetrative sexual assault includes offenses committed by public servants, police officers, or others in trusted positions.
The trial court labelled Sengar as a public servant under this definition.
However, the High Court’s Division Bench, consisting of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidynathan Shankar, concluded that Sengar did not qualify as a public servant under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act or Section 376(2)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court ruled that Sengar did not fit within the provisions of Section 5(p) of the POCSO Act, which addresses offenses committed by individuals “in a position of trust or authority.”
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the CBI asserts that the High Court made a legal error by ruling that aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act was not established in Sengar’s case.
The CBI argues that a sitting MLA holds a constitutional position of trust and authority, responsible for public duties that impact both the State and the community.
According to the petition,
“High Court failed to consider that a sitting MLA, by virtue of holding a constitutional office, is vested with public trust and authority over the electorate, and that such position carries heightened responsibility arising from duties owed to the State and society.”
The CBI further claims that the High Court did not apply a purposive interpretation of the POCSO Act, aimed at protecting children from sexual offenses.
They assert that Section 5(c) is designed to penalize the sexual exploitation of minors by individuals who abuse their positions of power or authority.
Additionally, the CBI has expressed concerns for the safety of the survivor and her family, indicating that Sengar’s influential status could threaten their security and undermine public faith in the justice system.
Previously, the Unnao rape case survivor announced that she would move the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi High Court’s order granting conditional bail to convict Kuldeep Singh Sengar.
Reacting to the decision, the survivor said the judgment had deeply shaken her faith in the justice system. She stated that the ruling left her emotionally devastated but reaffirmed her resolve to continue fighting for justice for the sake of her children and family.
Questioning the fairness of the legal process, she pointed out that her uncle remains in jail despite repeated bail pleas in a case she alleges was falsely lodged by Sengar’s brother, while Sengar himself has been granted bail. She claimed the decision reflected the influence of power and money.
The survivor also alleged political interference in the case, claiming that influential leaders backed Sengar and asserting that powerful interests played a role in the outcome. She said she would approach the Supreme Court seeking justice.
Background
The Unnao rape case has been marked by a series of tragic and controversial incidents involving the survivor’s family:
- April 2018: The survivor’s father was arrested under the Arms Act after an alleged complaint by Sengar’s associates. He later died in police custody. A post-mortem revealed 14 injuries on his body.
- July 2019: A day after the survivor wrote to the then Chief Justice of India seeking justice, a truck rammed into the car carrying her and her lawyer. Two of her aunts were killed in the crash. The survivor and her lawyer were seriously injured, and the lawyer later died.
- December 2019: Kuldeep Singh Sengar was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court.
The case dates back to 2017, when Sengar, who was later expelled from the BJP, allegedly kidnapped and raped a minor girl. In 2019, the Supreme Court transferred the rape case and related cases from a trial court in Uttar Pradesh to Delhi for impartial proceedings.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Unnao Rape