The Delhi High Court recently rejected an appeal from former Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) MLA Kuldeep Singh Senger, who sought to suspend his ten-year prison sentence. Senger was convicted in a custodial death case involving the father of the Unnao rape case victim.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “This Court also remains conscious of the fact that the period undergone by a convict is only one of the several factors which are to be taken into consideration while adjudicating an application seeking suspension of sentence, and other factors such as gravity of offence, nature of the crime, criminal antecedents of the convict, impact on public confidence in court, et al. are also to be appreciated and kept in mind by the Courts”. 

In December 2022, Kuldeep Singh Senger, previously sentenced to life imprisonment for raping a minor girl in Unnao District, Uttar Pradesh in 2017, applied for interim bail for two months to attend his daughter's wedding.

A division bench led by Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Poonam A Bamba approved his application for interim bail.

Advocate Kanhaiya Singhal, representing Senger, argued that since April 2018, Senger has been in jail with the exception of a brief period when he was granted interim relief for his daughter's wedding, during which he did not misuse the liberty granted. Singhal further contended that Senger has already served nearly six years of his ten-year sentence. He highlighted that other co-accused individuals, who had served more than half of their sentences, were granted suspension of their sentences.

Moreover, Advocate Singhal argued that the prosecution's case against the appellant relied solely on circumstantial evidence, particularly a phone call made by Senger to the Superintendent of Police, who was not accused in this case. Singhal claimed that the call detail records and mobile phone locations supposedly undermined the prosecution's allegations as baseless.

Advocate Singhal further asserted that the prosecution had also failed to establish a clear link between the alleged assault and the subsequent death of the victim. He argued that there was insufficient evidence to hold the appellant responsible for the victim's death beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, Singhal requested that the application for suspension of the sentence should be granted based on these grounds.

Special Public Prosecutor Ravi Sharma, representing the CBI and opposing the application, highlighted that Senger played a pivotal role in committing the offence. He pointed out that Senger was convicted in this case for causing the death of a witness in a brutal rape case. Sharma underscored that Senger had also been convicted of rape in another case connected to the same First Information Report (FIR). The prosecutor further emphasized the court's observations regarding Senger's involvement in the crime and stressed the gravity of the offence committed.

The court records reveal that on June 4, 2017, the minor daughter of the deceased was deceived with false promises of employment and subsequently raped at Senger's residence. On April 3, 2018, during a court proceeding in Unnao, the victim's father, Surendra, was brutally assaulted in broad daylight by Senger. The following day, Surendra was arrested by the police on charges of illegal possession of firearms and later died due to injuries sustained while in police custody on April 9, 2018.

The court outlined Senger’s role in the offence, noting “The sequence of events thereafter clearly established that under the patronage of the appellant Kuldeep Singh Senger and his brother Jaideep Singh Senger, the other accused persons in this case had assaulted the victim with leg and fist blows and then hit him with the barrel of a rifle”. 

The court additionally noted the trial court's findings regarding Senger's significant motive, which stemmed from adverse publicity and criticisms impacting both his personal and political life. Despite being physically present in Delhi, Senger's phone calls and recorded conversations revealed his awareness of and participation in the events unfolding in Unnao.

Furthermore, the court dismissed Senger's contention regarding inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, highlighting that upon evaluating the evidence, such arguments put forth by Senger were not substantiated.

The court reiterated “Once the accused has been held guilty, the presumption of innocence gets erased and the Courts will have to consider the application for suspension of sentence by taking only a prima facie view of the role of the accused, gravity of offence, etc. as recorded in the judgment of conviction”. 

Despite Kuldeep Singh Senger having already served over half of his ten-year sentence, approximately six years, the court emphasized that it must take into account several factors beyond the duration of imprisonment. These factors include the severity of the offence, the nature of the crime committed, Senger's criminal record, and the impact of the crime on public trust in the judicial system.

Considering these aspects and applying established legal principles, the court ultimately denied Senger's application for suspension of his sentence.