Delhi HC refuses to stay sentence of former BJP MP Senger in Unnao rape victim’s father’s death case

ANI-US |
Updated: 07 June 2024, 22:39 IS

New Delhi (India), June 7 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s plea seeking stay of sentence pending an appeal against the verdict and sentence.
He is serving a 10-year sentence in the case related to the death of a rape victim’s father in Unnao. He has been in custody since April 13, 2018.
Senger was convicted along with other accused by the Tis Hazari court in 2018. He is also serving a life sentence in the Minor rape case.
These cases stem from 2018 FIRs registered at Makhi police station in Unnao, Uttar Pradesh and decided by the District and Sessions Judge (West) of the Tis Hazari Court in Delhi.
Judge Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the application for suspension of sentence pending the appeal.
The Supreme Court stated that while the applicant had served about 6 of the 10 years of imprisonment awarded to him, “this Court is also conscious of the fact that the length of time a convict has been in custody is only one of several factors that must be considered while deciding an application for suspension of sentence. Other factors such as the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the crime, the criminal history of the convict and the impact on public confidence in the court must also be considered and kept in mind by the courts.”
“As regards the argument that the hearing of the appeal in the matter has taken a great deal of time, this Court is of the view that the counsels for the co-accused in the joined appeals had sought time to deal with the arguments in the matter on the last date of hearing i.e. on 28.05.2024,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said in her judgment.
The appeal is now scheduled for August 7, when a hearing on the matter will take place. It will depend on the lawyers how much time they will take to respond to the arguments, the Supreme Court said.
The High Court also stated that, according to the Supreme Court’s decision, the presumption of innocence ceases once the accused is found guilty and the courts, while considering the application for suspension of sentence, would only have to make a prima facie assessment of the role of the accused, the gravity of the offence etc. as reflected in the conviction.
“In view of the foregoing discussions and applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments discussed above, this Court is therefore not inclined to allow the present application for suspension of sentence at this stage,” the Supreme Court said.
Senger’s counsel had argued that the applicant had been languishing in prison since 13 April 2018, except for a brief period during which this Court granted him a provisional suspension of sentence on account of his daughter’s wedding, and that the applicant had admittedly not abused the freedom granted to him.

Lawyer Kanhaiya Singhal further argued that the accused had served an actual sentence of almost 6 years out of a total sentence of 10 years awarded to him. He also stated that all other co-accused who had served more than half of the sentence had already been granted suspended sentence.
The only circumstantial evidence that the prosecution has brought against the appellant is a telephone conversation between the appellant and the police commissioner, who is not named as an accused in this case. The recordings of the conversation details, the locations of the mobile phones, etc., revealed the falsity of the charge, argued the appellant’s counsel.
Advocate Ravi Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), however, opposed the application and argued that the present application for suspension of sentence was made on the ground that though the appellant had a prima facie case in his favour, the appellant was the key person in the commission of the offence.

SPP further submitted that the conviction of the appellant in the instant case was for causing the death of a witness in a case of brutal rape. It is noteworthy that the appellant was also convicted of rape in the related FIR, as the murdered witness in that case was himself a witness to the rape for which he was convicted.
He further referred to the findings contained in the judgment under appeal regarding the role of the present applicant and argued that the offence committed by the applicant was of a serious and grave nature.
The background of the present case is that on June 4, 2017, the minor daughter of the victim in this case was lured on the pretext of getting a job and taken to the house of accused Kuldeep Singh Senger where the accused raped her.
The Supreme Court observed that the family of the minor rape victim had travelled to Unnao for a court hearing on April 3, 2018, when her father, the victim in the case, was brutally attacked by the accused in broad daylight. The very next day, the police arrested the victim Surendra on charges of illegal possession of arms and he eventually succumbed to his multiple injuries in police custody on April 9, 2018.

The Supreme Court also observed that the trial of five cases arising out of incidents, including the present case, was transferred from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi by the Supreme Court vide order dated 01.08.2019 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) 01/2019 cum Transfer Petition (Criminal) and the trial was directed to be completed within 45 days.
The court also took note of the Supreme Court’s order dated 01.08.2019 in the Suo Motu Writ Petition whereby the CRPF granted protection to the minor rape victim along with her lawyer, mother and other immediate family members. Further, the protection granted by the CRPF to the said persons has not been revoked till date. (ANI)