Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Delhi High Court records show that investigative and legal lapses played a significant role in the outcome, News18 reported.
The Delhi High Court dismissed charges against Sengar under Sections 5(c) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, holding that an MLA does not qualify as a “public servant” under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to News18, the court relied on a prior decision of the Supreme Court, a position which the CBI itself had accepted during the arguments.
CBI’s legal stand failed to convince the court
While the CBI urged the High Court to “adopt the principle of purposive construction”, the bench refused to do so, observing that the statutory definition could not be stretched.
As a result, the court ruled that Sengar could not be sentenced to life imprisonment under the relevant POCSO provisions.
Read more: Unnao rape case: Victim approaches SC against suspension of Kuldeep Sengar’s sentence
The judgment further noted that in 2019, when the victim’s family sought to prosecute Sengar under more stringent IPC provisions applicable to a public servant who commits rape, the CBI did not support the plea.
According to News18, the agency had argued at the time that the proposed charges were “not fully applicable”, leading the trial court to dismiss the petition.
missed opportunity on serious allegations
The Delhi High Court said the trial court’s 2019 order was neither challenged by the survivor nor supported by the CBI. Later attempts by the victim’s family to seek conviction under Section 376(2)(f) and (k) of the IPC also failed.
The court said Sengar has now been acquitted of charges under sections 5 and 6 of POCSO.
According to the ruling, Sengar can be prosecuted only under Section 3 of the POCSO Act, which carries a maximum punishment of seven years – a period he has already served in custody, according to News 18.
allegations of unfair investigation
According to News 18, the high court also noted the trial court’s finding that it was an “inevitable conclusion” that the CBI investigating officer did not conduct a fair investigation, causing “loss” to the victim and her family.
Read more: Unnao rape case: CBI will challenge the bail of Kuldeep Sengar in the Supreme Court.
Despite being ultimately convicted at the trial stage, the victim’s family stated before the High Court that there was a lack of impartiality even after the investigation was transferred to the CBI.
He further alleged: “The CBI IO worked closely with Sengar to ensure that relevant evidence regarding the age of the survivor never came to light and instead, false and fabricated documents prepared by Sengar were produced.”