Introduction
The recent decision of the Delhi High Court suspending the sentence of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the infamous Unnao rape case has sparked intense legal and public debate. The order, which relies on a technical interpretation of the term “public servant”, has been criticised for overlooking the gravity of the offence, the background of systemic abuse of power, and settled principles governing suspension of sentence in cases involving life imprisonment for sexual offences.
This post analyses why the suspension of sentence appears legally flawed, examines the interpretation adopted by the High Court, and evaluates its implications for victim protection and criminal jurisprudence in India.
Background of the Unnao Rape Case
The Unnao rape case, dating back to 2017, is not an ordinary criminal prosecution. The survivor, a minor at the time of the offence, was allegedly raped by Kuldeep Singh Sengar, a powerful sitting MLA. The case gained national attention only after the survivor attempted self-immolation outside the Chief Minister’s residence due to inaction by the police.
Sengar’s arrest in 2018 came only after intervention by the Allahabad High Court, which made scathing observations about the law enforcement machinery being under the influence of the accused. The Court noted that officials appeared to be acting in league with Sengar, highlighting a disturbing misuse of political power.
Following the rape allegation, the survivor and her family were subjected to intimidation and harassment. Her father was arrested on questionable charges, assaulted in custody, and subsequently died. In 2020, Sengar was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 304 (Part II) IPC for the culpable homicide of the survivor’s father.
Conviction and Sentencing
In December 2019, a Delhi trial court convicted Kuldeep Singh Sengar for rape under the Indian Penal Code and penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The court awarded life imprisonment, considering the aggravated nature of the offence and the abuse of power involved.
The trial court recorded detailed findings about how the survivor was threatened, silenced, and how her family members were targeted after the incident. These findings formed the basis for imposing the maximum punishment prescribed by law.
Delhi High Court’s Reasoning for Suspension of Sentence
While hearing Sengar’s appeal, the Delhi High Court suspended his sentence primarily on the ground that a sitting MLA does not qualify as a “public servant” under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Since Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act treats sexual assault by a public servant as an aggravated offence by adopting the IPC definition, the Court held that this provision was inapplicable.
On similar reasoning, the Court concluded that Section 376(2) IPC, which provides enhanced punishment for rape committed by a public servant, would also not apply. Consequently, it held that the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of life imposed under these aggravated provisions could not be sustained, justifying suspension of sentence.
Why the Interpretation Is Problematic
1. Hyper-Technical Approach Ignoring Legislative Intent
While a purely textual reading of Section 21 IPC may support the conclusion that an MLA is not a “public servant”, such an interpretation defeats the broader purpose of aggravated offence provisions. The POCSO Act was enacted to provide heightened protection to children from sexual offences, particularly where there is an abuse of authority or dominance.
An elected representative wields immense influence, power, and control over state machinery. Treating such authority as irrelevant merely because it does not fall within a narrow statutory definition undermines the spirit of child protection laws.
2. Life Imprisonment Still Attracted Even Without Section 5(c)
Even assuming Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act does not apply, Sengar’s conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act for penetrative sexual assault of a minor remains intact. Section 4 itself permits punishment up to life imprisonment.
Similarly, under Section 376 IPC, life imprisonment is a permissible punishment for rape, independent of the aggravated categories. Therefore, the conclusion that the sentence becomes unsustainable merely due to misclassification is legally questionable.
3. Suspension of Sentence in Life Imprisonment Cases Is an Exception
The Supreme Court has consistently held that suspension of sentence after conviction is not a matter of routine, especially in cases involving life imprisonment for heinous crimes. Once a person is convicted, the presumption of innocence no longer applies.
In serious sexual offences, particularly those involving minors and abuse of power, courts have repeatedly emphasised caution while granting bail or suspending sentences. The High Court’s order appears difficult to reconcile with these well-settled principles.
Ignoring the Case’s Exceptional Circumstances
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the order is its failure to adequately consider the extraordinary background of the case. Judicial intervention was necessitated precisely because of the accused’s influence and the threat posed to the survivor and her family.
The Supreme Court had transferred the trial from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi in 2019 due to concerns over fair investigation and safety. Treating the appeal as a routine post-conviction matter ignores the systemic intimidation, abuse of power, and chilling effect on the survivor’s access to justice.
Impact on Victim-Centric Justice
The suspension of Sengar’s sentence sends a troubling signal regarding the protection of survivors in cases involving politically powerful accused. It risks reinforcing the perception that technical loopholes can override substantive justice, even after conviction for grave sexual offences.
Victim-centric jurisprudence requires courts to balance the rights of the accused with the dignity, safety, and confidence of survivors. Orders that appear to trivialise the gravity of offences or the context of abuse risk undermining public trust in the criminal justice system.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s suspension of Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s sentence in the Unnao rape case raises serious legal and ethical concerns. By adopting a narrow, hyper-technical interpretation of “public servant” and overlooking the gravity of the offence, the background of intimidation, and established principles governing life imprisonment cases, the order appears legally vulnerable.
At a time when courts are expected to strengthen survivor-centric justice and accountability for powerful offenders, such decisions risk diluting the deterrent effect of criminal law. The case underscores the urgent need for a purposive interpretation of protective statutes like the POCSO Act and a cautious approach to suspending sentences in heinous crimes.
Also Read
