Delhi High Court: In an application filed by Kuldeep Singh Senger under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking the suspension of the sentence awarded to him for various serious offenses, including rape, murder, and other charges under the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Arms Act, 1959 during the pendency of the present appeal, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. dismissed the application while stating that the court was not inclined to allow the same given the antecedents of Kuldeep Singh Senger and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in previous judgments.
The Court stated ‘Though the appellant has undergone more than half of the sentence imposed upon him, i.e. 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 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.’
Background
The present appeal arose from the judgment dated 04-03-2020 and the order on sentence dated 13-03-2020. These cases were based on two First Information Reports (‘FIR’) registered at Police Station Makhi, Unnao, U.P. adjudicated by the District and Sessions Judge (West) at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Kuldeep Singh Senger was convicted and sentenced under Sections 120B, 193, 201, 203, 211, 323, 341, and 304 part (ii) of IPC as well as Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
On 04-06-2017, 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 Kuldeep Singh Senger where he had raped her. On 03-04-2018, the family of the minor rape victim travelled to Unnao for a court hearing when her father was brutally assaulted by the accused persons. The father was then arrested on allegations of being in illegal possession of arms and he ultimately succumbed to multiple injuries suffered by him in police custody.
Thereafter, the trial of five cases arising out of the aforesaid incidents including the present matter, was transferred from U.P. to Delhi by the Supreme Court vide order dated 01-08-2019, and the trial was directed to be concluded within 45 days.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that since Kuldeep Singh Yadav had been awarded a maximum sentence of ten years, his case would fall within the ambit of the first proviso to Section 389(1) of CrPC.
The Court stated that it had gone through the contents of the impugned judgment vide which Kuldeep Singh Senger was convicted and found it essential to highlight his role in the commission of offence in the present case.
The court noted the sequence of events recorded by the impugned judgment which established that the other accused persons in this case had assaulted the victim under the patronage of Kuldeep Singh Senger and his brother.
Further, the Court noted that the Trial Court held that the records indicated that Kuldeep Singh Senger had a strong motive due to his frustration over pamphlets and WhatsApp messages that were circulated against him and that it was also observed that Kuldeep Singh Senger had provided substantial encouragement and support to the other co-accused persons without which the co-accused would not have been able to assault and humiliate the victim in the manner they did.
The Court noted that the impugned judgment categorically held that the call records between Kuldeep Singh Senger and the co-accused persons indicated that despite being away from the village, Kuldeep Singh Senger had orchestrated the entire accident and had managed to falsely implicate the victim for possession of illegal firearms after conspiring with the policemen.
The Court stated that after a detailed appreciation of the evidence on record and taking the prima facie view of the matter, this Court was not persuaded to accept the arguments of Kuldeep Singh Senger.
The Court also took note of the Supreme Court’s view that once the accused has been held guilty, the presumption of innocence gets erased and the Courts would have to consider the application for suspension of sentence by taking only a prima facie view of the role of the accused, the gravity of offence, etc.
Further, the Court stated that another crucial aspect of the matter was that the Supreme Court, by the order dated 01-08-2019, provided protection to the minor rape victim along with her lawyer, mother, and other immediate family members by CRPF which had not been withdrawn till date.
The Court referred to Kuldeep Singh Senger’s antecedents and stated that he had already been convicted under Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’) read with Section 376 of IPC vide judgment dated 16-12-2019 and vide order dated 20-12-2019 for the offence of rape of minor girl, and had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the remainder of his life.
Therefore, while dismissing the application, the Court held that regarding the facts of the matter and principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it was not inclined to allow the present application seeking suspension of sentence.
[Kuldeep Singh Senger v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4342, Decided on 07-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant — Advocate Kanhaiya Singhal, Advocate Ujwal Ghai, Advocate Aishwarya Sengar, Advocate Udit Bakshi, Advocate Vani Singhal, Advocate Prasanna, Advocate Teeksh Singhal, Advocate Deepali Pawar, Advocate Ajay Kumar, Advocate Anmol Chopra
For Respondent — SPP Ravi Sharma, Advocate Anjani Kumar Rai, Advocate Praphulll Kumar
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
