Death Of Unnao Rape Victim's Father: CBI, Survivor Oppose Kuldeep Sengar's Plea Seeking Suspension Of Sentence On Medical Grounds

Update: 2025-08-13 11:45 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Central Bureau of Investigation today opposed Kuldeep Singh Sengar's plea seeking suspension of his 10 years sentence in the custodial death case of Unnao rape victim's father, on grounds of his health.Special Public Prosecutor Ravi Sharma appearing for CBI informed Justice Ravinder Dudeja that a coordinate bench of the High Court had in June last year, refused to suspend the sentence vide...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Central Bureau of Investigation today opposed Kuldeep Singh Sengar's plea seeking suspension of his 10 years sentence in the custodial death case of Unnao rape victim's father, on grounds of his health.

Special Public Prosecutor Ravi Sharma appearing for CBI informed Justice Ravinder Dudeja that a coordinate bench of the High Court had in June last year, refused to suspend the sentence vide a reasoned order.

For context, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had refused to suspend his sentence citing gravity of offence, Sengar's criminal antecedents, impact of his release on public confidence in court, etc.

Sharma said this successive application for suspension of sentence was filed to re-agitate the issues already rejected by Justice Sharma and that raising medical grounds was merely a tactic to maintain the application by showing 'change in circumstances'.

"Successive application for suspension of sentence is maintainable but there has to be material change in circumstances...you (Sengar) make an application and in order to show change in circumstance, you make medical grounds. Then you come to the Court and re-agitate all grounds already argued 5 months ago, in the garb of this application," Sharma submitted.

He said the Supreme Court has condemned such a practice in State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) in the following words: "when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence."

Advocate Mehmood Pracha, appearing for the deceased's daughter, for whose rape Sengar has been convicted and sentenced to life in another case, also relied on the aforesaid SC ruling to contend that the successive application should ideally be heard by Justice Sharma only, to prevent any abuse of process of the Court. He read from the judgment:

"In such cases it is necessary to act with restraint and circumspection so that the process of the Court is not abused by a litigant and an impression does not gain ground that the litigant has either successfully avoided one Judge or selected another to secure an order which had hitherto eluded him. In such a situation the proper course, we think, is to direct that the matter be placed before the same learned Judge who disposed of the earlier applications."

"I will go through the judgment in detail..." Justice Dudeja orally remarked.

At this juncture, Senior Advocate Manish Vashishta appearing for Sengar submitted that there have been subsequent judgments on the issue and thus sought time to make submissions. He referred to a judgment which holds that rosters have to be scrupulously followed.

The matter is now posted on August 21.

Significant to note that Sengar has also sought suspension of sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him in the rape case. The same is pending consideration before a division bench of the High Court.

During the hearing, Justice Dudeja had also indicated that it would be prudent to await the decision of division bench.

"When larger bench is already...facts of both cases are intertwined...that was rape of girl, this is demise of her father...it's not that we'll not continue with the matter...we've started with the matter, but since division bench is already hearing it..." the judge had said orally.

In April 2018, the family of the minor rape victim had travelled to Unnao for a court hearing when her father was brutally assaulted by the accused persons in broad daylight.

The very next day, the police arrested the father on allegations of being in illegal possession of arms and he had ultimately succumbed to multiple injuries suffered by him in police custody.

In August 2019, trial of five cases in the matter, including the case concerning victim's father's death, were transferred from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi, by the Apex Court.

Case name: Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI

Case no.: CRL.M.(BAIL) 2050/2024 

Full View


Tags:    

Similar News