The Central Bureau of Investigation has approached the Supreme Court challenging the order by which the Delhi High Court suspended the life sentence awarded to former Uttar Pradesh legislator Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case and granted him bail during the pendency of his criminal appeal. The CBI has sought the setting aside of the High Court’s decision, contending that the suspension of sentence was granted by erroneously interpreting statutory provisions and by overlooking the gravity of the offence as well as the circumstances in which it was committed. According to the investigating agency, the High Court’s findings have the potential to weaken the intent of laws enacted to protect children from sexual abuse and to undermine confidence in the justice system.
In its petition before the Supreme Court, the CBI has argued that the Delhi High Court committed a serious error by holding that the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was not made out against Sengar. The agency has maintained that the High Court’s conclusion was based on an unduly narrow and incorrect understanding of the scope of the provisions dealing with aggravated offences. The CBI has emphasised that at the time of the crime, Sengar was a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly and therefore occupied a position of public authority, influence and trust. It has argued that such a position squarely brings him within the category of persons who misuse their power and status to commit sexual offences against children, which the aggravated provisions of the POCSO Act were specifically designed to address.
The CBI has further contended that the legislative intent behind the POCSO Act is to provide enhanced protection to children by recognising the increased vulnerability they face when offenders are persons in positions of authority or trust. It has argued that the High Court failed to adopt a purposive interpretation of the statute and instead relied on a restrictive reading that defeats the object of the law. According to the agency, the conclusion that an elected representative cannot be treated as holding a position of authority for the purposes of the POCSO Act runs contrary to the spirit of the legislation and ignores the real-life power dynamics involved in such cases.
The High Court, while granting suspension of sentence, had taken the view that Sengar could not be treated as a public servant within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code or as a person occupying a position of trust or authority under the POCSO Act. On this basis, the High Court held that the aggravated form of the offence was not prima facie established. It was this finding that formed the central basis for the decision to suspend the sentence and grant bail pending appeal. The CBI has argued that this approach amounts to a reappreciation of evidence and a premature determination of legal issues that ought to be finally decided only at the stage of hearing the appeal itself.
The investigating agency has also stressed before the Supreme Court that suspension of sentence after conviction for a heinous offence is not to be granted as a matter of course. It has pointed out that once a trial court has found the accused guilty after a full-fledged trial and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment, the presumption of innocence no longer operates in the same manner. According to the CBI, settled legal principles require appellate courts to exercise great caution while suspending sentences in cases involving serious crimes, particularly offences against minors, and to do so only in exceptional circumstances. The agency has asserted that no such exceptional circumstances exist in the present case to justify the relief granted to Sengar.
Another key aspect highlighted by the CBI is the concern for the safety and well-being of the survivor and her family. The agency has submitted that Sengar is a person of considerable influence and that his release on bail poses a real risk of intimidation or harm to the victim and her relatives. It has also pointed to the broader impact on public confidence, arguing that allowing a convicted individual in a high-profile sexual offence case to be released during the pendency of appeal could send a damaging message about the seriousness with which such crimes are treated by the justice system. The CBI has urged the Supreme Court to take these considerations into account while examining the legality of the High Court’s order.
The case itself arises from allegations that in 2017, Sengar kidnapped and raped a minor girl over a period of several days and subsequently sold her before she was recovered by the police. Following investigation and trial, a special court convicted Sengar in 2019 for the offence of rape and for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for life, noting the absence of any mitigating circumstances and emphasising the betrayal of trust involved in the offence. The court placed reliance on the testimony of the victim, which it found to be consistent, credible and of high evidentiary value, and concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
After his conviction, Sengar filed an appeal challenging both the findings of guilt and the sentence imposed by the trial court. While that appeal remains pending, he sought suspension of sentence and bail from the Delhi High Court. The High Court, while allowing his application, imposed certain conditions, including the furnishing of a personal bond and sureties, restrictions on his movements, and other safeguards. The High Court’s decision, however, was heavily influenced by its prima facie assessment of the applicability of the aggravated offence provisions, an assessment that the CBI has now placed under challenge before the Supreme Court.
In its plea, the CBI has reiterated that the High Court effectively diluted the seriousness of the offence by excluding the aggravated provisions without a full hearing of the appeal. The agency has argued that such an approach is contrary to established judicial practice, particularly in cases involving sexual violence against children. It has maintained that the High Court’s order reflects an incorrect balancing of interests, giving undue weight to the rights of the convicted individual while insufficiently considering the rights and protection of the victim.
The petition before the Supreme Court also underscores that the trial court had taken a clear view that Sengar’s status as an elected representative aggravated the offence rather than mitigating it. The trial court had observed that the abuse of power by a public figure inflicts deeper harm and erodes public trust, making the offence more serious. The CBI has argued that the High Court failed to adequately engage with these findings while granting suspension of sentence. According to the agency, the High Court’s reasoning overlooks the factual and legal basis on which the conviction and sentence were founded.
By moving the Supreme Court, the CBI has sought restoration of the life sentence during the pendency of the appeal and cancellation of the bail granted to Sengar. The agency has requested the apex court to clarify the correct interpretation of the provisions relating to aggravated penetrative sexual assault and to reaffirm the principle that persons in positions of authority, including elected representatives, fall within the ambit of enhanced liability when they commit sexual offences against children. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s consideration will determine whether the High Court’s order suspending the sentence will stand or whether Sengar will be required to return to custody until his appeal is finally decided.
The matter places before the Supreme Court important questions relating to the interpretation of child protection laws, the standards for suspending sentences after conviction, and the balance between the rights of convicted individuals and the need to ensure justice and safety for victims of sexual violence. The CBI’s challenge reflects its position that the seriousness of the offence, the findings of the trial court, and the objectives of the POCSO Act necessitate a stricter approach, particularly when the accused is a person who wielded significant influence at the time of the crime.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.