India News | Delhi HC rejects suspended sentence for former BJP MP Senger in his father’s death case in Unnao

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.

Also read | Irfan Solanki gets seven years in prison: Kanpur court sends Samajwadi Party MP and four others to jail in arson case.

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 Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the application seeking stay of sentence pending the appeal.

Also read | Medha Patkar ‘defamation case’: Delhi court postpones verdict against Narmada Bachao Andolan activist to July 1.

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 hearing of appeal on the merits is taking a lot of time, this court is of the view that the learned counsels for the co-accused in joined appeals have sought time on the last date of hearing i.e. 28.05.2024 to respond to the arguments on the merits,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said in the judgment. The appeals are now scheduled for August 7 when they will be listed for hearing on the merits and it will depend on the learned counsels how much time they will take to respond to the arguments, the top 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 above discussion 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 top court said. Senger’s counsel had argued that the appellant has been languishing in jail since April 13, 2018, except for a brief period during which he was granted interim suspension of sentence by this Court on account of his daughter’s marriage and that the appellant has admittedly not abused the liberty 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.

On the other hand, advocate Ravi Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) opposed the application and argued that the present application for stay of sentence was made on the ground that the appellant has a prima facie case in his favour but the appellant here was the key person in the commission of an offence. The SPP also submitted that the conviction of the appellant in the present case was for the offence of causing the death of a witness in a case of brutal rape. It is noteworthy to note that in the related FIR, the appellant was also convicted for the offence of rape as the murdered witness in that case was himself a witness to the rape for which he was convicted. He also referred to the findings made in the impugned judgment regarding the role of the present appellant and argued that the offence committed by the appellant was of a grave and serious 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 on April 3, 2018, the family of the minor rape victim had travelled to Unnao for a court hearing 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 finally succumbed to multiple injuries in police custody on April 9, 2018. The Supreme Court also observed that the trials in five cases arising out of the incidents, including the present case, were transferred from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi by the Supreme Court vide order dated 01.08.2019 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) 01/2019 with Transfer Petition (Criminal) and the trials were 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)

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from the syndicated news feed. LatestLY team may not have modified or edited the content.)