New Delhi [India], June 7 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Friday declined the plea of Kuldeep Singh Sengar seeking suspension of sentence during an appeal against the judgment and sentence.
He is serving 10 years sentence in Unnao rape victim's father's custodial death case. He has been in custody since 13 April 2018.
Senger along with other accused was convicted by the Tis Hazari Court in 2018. He is also serving a life sentence in Minor's rape case.
These cases stem from FIRs of 2018, registered at Police Station Makhi, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, which were decided by the District and Sessions Judge (West) at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the plea for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
The High Court said that though the appellant herein has undergone about 06 years out of 10 years of imprisonment awarded to him, "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 offense, nature of the crime, criminal antecedents of the convict, impact on public confidence in court are also to be appreciated and kept in mind by the Courts."
"As far as the argument regarding the hearing of appeal on merit taking substantial time is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that on the last date of hearing i.e. 28.05.2024, learned counsels for the co-accused persons in connected appeals had sought time to address arguments on merits," Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said in the judgment.
The appeals are now listed on August 7 when the same will be taken up for hearing on merits and it will depend on the learned counsels as to how much time will they take to address arguments, the High Court said.
The High Court also said that as held by the Apex Court, 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 offense, etc. as recorded in the judgment of conviction.
"Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, and upon applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments discussed hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to allow the present application seeking suspension of sentence at this stage," the High Court said.
Senger's counsel had argued that the appellant has been languishing in jail since April 13, 2018, except for a brief period when he was granted the benefit of interim suspension of sentence by this Court, on account of the marriage of his daughter, and the appellant, had admittedly, not misused the liberty granted to him.
It was further argued by advocate Kanhaiya Singhal that the appellant has undergone an actual sentence of almost 6 years, out of a total period of 10 years awarded to him. He also stated that all other co-accused persons who had undergone more than half of the imprisonment have already been granted the benefit of suspension of sentence.
The only circumstantial evidence which the prosecution alleges against the appellant is that a phone call was made by the appellant to the Superintendent of Police, who was not made an accused in this case, and the call detail records, location of mobile phones, etc. reveal the falsity of the case of the prosecution, appellant's counsel argued.
On the other hand, Advocate Ravi Sharma, Special public prosecutor (SPP) opposed the plea and argued that the present application for suspension of sentence has been filed on the ground that the appellant has prima facie case in his favor, however, the appellant herein was the key person in the commission of an offence.
SPP also submitted that the appellant's conviction in the present case is for the offense of causing the death of a witness in a case of brutal rape. Noteworthy is the fact that the appellant also stands convicted for the offense of rape in the connected FIR, since the witness who has been murdered was a witness in this case itself of rape in which he stands convicted.
He also referred to the observations made in the impugned judgment with respect to the role of the present appellant and has argued that the offense committed by the appellant is grave and serious in nature.
The background of present case is that on June 4, 2017, the minor daughter of the victim in this case was enticed on the pretext of getting a job and was taken to the house of appellant Kuldeep Singh Senger where the appellant had raped her.
The high court noted that on April 3, 2018, the family of the minor rape victim had travelled to Unnao for a court hearing when her father, victim in this case was brutally assaulted by the accused persons in broad daylight. The very next day, the police had arrested the victim Surendra on allegations of being in illegal possession of arms and he had ultimately succumbed to multiple injuries suffered by him, in police custody on April 9, 2018.
The High Court also noted that the trial of five cases arising out of incidents, including the present case, was transferred from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi, by the apex Court vide order dated 01.08.2019 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) 01/2019 with Transfer Petition (Criminal), and the trial was directed to be concluded within 45 days.
The bench also took note of the order of 01.08.2019 passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition by virtue of which protection had been provided to the minor rape victim as well as her lawyer, mother and other immediate family members by CRPF. Further, the security of the said persons as provided by CRPF has not been withdrawn to date. (ANI)
