Supreme Court Mandates Expedited Hearing for Kuldeep Sengar's Unnao Custodial Death Appeal
The Supreme Court of India issued a significant directive on Monday, ordering the Delhi High Court to conduct an "out-of-turn" hearing for former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar's appeal against his conviction and 10-year prison sentence. This appeal pertains to the custodial death case involving the father of the Unnao rape victim. The apex court has mandated that the High Court must decide this matter within a strict timeframe of three months.
In a comprehensive ruling, the Supreme Court bench also directed that the victim's own appeal, which seeks an enhancement of Sengar's sentence, should be heard concurrently with his appeal against the conviction. This ensures both legal challenges are addressed together in the expedited process.
Bench Composition and Legal Challenge
The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice N V Anjaria, was presiding over Sengar's plea. This plea contested a Delhi High Court order from January 19, which had refused to suspend his sentence while the appeal was pending. The Supreme Court's intervention highlights the urgency and complexity of this high-profile case.
Defense Arguments on Sentence Completion
Representing Sengar, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave presented a compelling argument before the court. He emphasized that the former MLA has nearly completed the entirety of his 10-year sentence. Dave stated, "9 years and 7 months I have completed out of 10 years... my appeal is from 2020... another 5 months, I would have undergone the entire sentence!" He further noted that the High Court had previously ruled that the period of incarceration alone is not the sole criterion for suspending a sentence.
CJI's Clarification on Incarceration and Remission
Chief Justice Surya Kant intervened to clarify the actual duration of imprisonment Sengar has served, observing, "Actual undergone is 7 years something..." The CJI also issued a caution regarding remission, indicating that it may not be automatically applicable in cases involving moral turpitude. He remarked, "it is highly debatable whether you will be entitled to claim remission in such case of moral turpitude," underscoring the gravity of the offense.
Judicial Inquiry on Enhanced Charges
During the proceedings, Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised a critical question regarding the absence of an appeal to convert the conviction to a more severe offense under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Bagchi inquired, "Why not appeal for converting it to S.302?" In response, Dave cited technical issues with the cause title, but Justice Bagchi dismissed this, asserting, "We are not concerned with cause title... the victim is before us," highlighting the court's focus on substantive justice over procedural technicalities.
Court's Recording and Directions for High Court
The Supreme Court meticulously recorded the submissions made during the hearing. It noted that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had pointed out that Sengar's criminal appeal is scheduled before the High Court on February 11. Mehta suggested that the High Court could be requested to prioritize and decide the appeal on its merits on an out-of-turn basis. The bench accepted this submission, leading to the directive for an expedited hearing.
Additionally, the court observed that while counsel for the complainant had mentioned an appeal challenging the quantum of sentence, this was not formally reflected in the records. The bench stated, "Since there is no reference of this appeal, we do not express any opinion in relation thereto," maintaining judicial restraint on unrecorded matters.
Context of Separate Life Sentence
Senior Advocate Dave also argued that in cases involving fixed-term sentences, suspension during the pendency of an appeal is typically granted. However, the bench countered this by noting that Sengar is already serving a life sentence in a separate, related case concerning the rape of the Unnao survivor. This context adds a layer of complexity to the current appeal, as it intersects with his ongoing imprisonment for another grave offense.
The Supreme Court's ruling underscores a commitment to timely justice in this sensitive case, balancing legal procedures with the need for expeditious resolution. The directive to the Delhi High Court aims to ensure that both Sengar's appeal and the victim's plea for enhanced punishment are addressed promptly, within the stipulated three-month period.
