The Delhi High Court on Tuesday suspended the sentence of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case involving a minor girl. The decision came after the Court formed a prima facie view that the charge of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act may not apply to Sengar.
This finding became the central basis for granting him interim relief while his appeal against conviction remains pending.
Understanding the Legal Framework Under POCSO
Under Section 5 of the POCSO Act, certain circumstances elevate a case of penetrative sexual assault into an aggravated offence. These include situations where the crime is committed by a public servant, police officer, member of the armed forces, hospital staff, or jail personnel. The law also covers individuals who commit such offences while being in a position of trust or authority over the child.
An aggravated offence carries far more severe consequences, including a minimum sentence of 20 years, which can extend to imprisonment for the remainder of the offender’s natural life.
Why the Trial Court’s Reasoning Was Questioned
The trial court had earlier sentenced Sengar to life imprisonment, holding that he qualified as a “public servant” and therefore fell within the scope of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The reasoning was rooted in the idea that, as an elected representative, Sengar enjoyed public trust, which he had gravely betrayed.
However, the Division Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidynathan Shankar took a different view at the appellate stage.
High Court’s Prima Facie Assessment
The Bench observed that Sengar could not be categorised as a “public servant” for the purposes of Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act or Section 376(2)(b) of the Indian Penal Code. The Court also found that he did not fall within the scope of Section 5(p) of the POCSO Act, which deals with offenders in a position of trust or authority.
“In view of the above, this Court is of the prima facie view that for the purpose of suspension of sentence, the Appellant cannot be brought into the ambit of aggravated penetrative sexual assault,” the Court noted, adding that the stringent punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act or Section 376(2) of the IPC may not apply at this stage.
Sentence Already Undergone a Key Factor
The High Court further pointed out that if the offence is treated as penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act, the applicable punishment would fall under Section 4, which prescribes a minimum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.
Since Sengar has already spent approximately seven years and five months in custody, the Bench said this fact weighed heavily in favour of suspending his sentence for now.
Taking these factors together, the Court stated it was inclined to grant suspension of sentence while the appeal is adjudicated.
Background of the Unnao Rape Case
The case dates back to June 2017, when the survivor, who was a minor at the time, was allegedly kidnapped and raped by Sengar over several days between June 11 and June 20. According to the prosecution, she was later sold for ₹60,000 and subsequently recovered from the Maakhi police station.
The survivor also alleged that police officials repeatedly threatened her and warned her against speaking out, acting on Sengar’s instructions.
An FIR was eventually registered against Sengar for rape, kidnapping, criminal intimidation, and offences under the POCSO Act. He was arrested following an order of the Allahabad High Court.
Transfer of Trial and Conviction
In August 2019, the Supreme Court transferred the trial in four cases linked to the Unnao incident from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi. The apex court directed that the proceedings be conducted on a day-to-day basis and completed within 45 days.
By December 2019, the trial court convicted Sengar and sentenced him to life imprisonment. While doing so, it emphasised that in a democratic system, an elected representative holds the trust of the people, and that even a single act of such gravity was enough to shatter that trust.
Legal Representation in the Case
Senior Advocates N Hariharan and Manish Vashisht, along with a large team of advocates, represented Kuldeep Sengar before the High Court. The Central Bureau of Investigation was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Anubha Bhardwaj, assisted by advocates Vijay Mishra and Ananya Shamshery.
Counsel for the complainant included advocates Mehmood Pracha, Sanawar, Jatin Bhatt, Kshtij Singh, and Kumail Abbas. Advocate Urvi Mohan appeared on behalf of the Delhi Commission for Women.
