BREAKING| Unnao Rape Case: Advocate Writes to Delhi HC CJ Over Suspension of Sengar’s Life Sentence

In a detailed representation addressed through the Registrar General, the advocate urged that the matter be taken up expeditiously, citing the extraordinary context of the case, its history of intimidation, and the wider implications for survivor protection, child safety, and public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The representation clarified at the outset that it did not seek to question the judicial merits of the December 23 order, which can only be examined in appropriate legal proceedings. Instead, the plea was confined to the administrative domain, requesting early listing and consolidated hearing of all connected applications in view of the “immediate consequences” flowing from the suspension of sentence.

Referring to the Unnao case, the advocate underscored that it is remembered not merely for the offence itself, but for what followed: repeated struggles by the survivor to be heard, intimidation of her family, the killing of her father, attacks on relatives and lawyers, and extraordinary judicial interventions, including transfer of trial and grant of CRPF protection. According to the letter, these factors make the case emblematic of “power-asymmetry” prosecutions, where the criminal process itself risks becoming punitive for the victim.

The advocate expressed concern that the High Court’s prima facie view, that the aggravated offence under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act may not apply as the appellant does not qualify as a “public servant”, coupled with the fact that he has undergone over seven years of incarceration, could unintentionally dilute the gravity attached to the offence at the interim stage. Even if the aggravated provision is ultimately held inapplicable, the letter argued, the offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of POCSO remains punishable up to life imprisonment and cannot be treated as low-gravity merely because the minimum term has been crossed.

The representation highlighted that the High Court’s own order records findings of extreme vulnerability: prior transfer of trial, conviction of the appellant for culpable homicide in relation to the survivor’s father, attempts to harm family members and lawyers, and the need for continued security cover. These, it argued, are not peripheral facts but central to assessing interim liberty in a case marked by documented intimidation.

Another concern raised was the broader interpretive implication of excluding an elected MLA from the category of “public servant” for the purposes of aggravated child sexual offences. The advocate noted that such a conclusion, even if textually reasoned, risks appearing disconnected from lived reality, as legislators exercise public authority, draw salaries from the exchequer, and command significant institutional influence.

Placing the issue in a national context, the letter referred to NCRB data indicating over 4.48 lakh crimes against women in 2023, arguing that high-visibility orders in cases involving sexual violence and political power carry symbolic weight far beyond the individual file. According to the advocate, the gravest danger is not absence of law, but a perception that protective statutes can be diluted through technical interpretation when power is involved.

The advocate accordingly requested the Chief Justice to consider preponing the listing of the appeal and connected applications, ensuring they are heard by the same roster bench, and, if necessary, adopting an institutional course to clarify how “public servant” status is to be applied in aggravated child sexual offences under POCSO.

Reiterating respect for the Court and the discipline of the Bar, the representation concluded that the issue goes beyond one case, touching the constitutional promise of dignity, safety, and equality for women and children, and whether the justice system can “hold steady when power tests it.”