Legal News & Court Updates.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea for Sentence Suspension in Case Linked to Unnao Incidents

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed an application seeking suspension of sentence filed by Jaideep Singh Senger alias Atul Singh , who was convicted and sentenced in a case related to the brutal assault and subsequent death of the father of the Unnao minor rape victim.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma , presiding over the matter (CRL.A. 451/2020), rejected the application filed under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which sought suspension of the sentence during the pendency of his appeal against the conviction.

Senger was convicted and sentenced on March 4, 2020, and March 13, 2020, respectively, by the District and Sessions Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He received sentences including ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with convictions under various other IPC sections (120B, 193, 201, 203, 211, 323, 341) and Section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act. The maximum sentence awarded was 10 years.

Background of the Case

The case stems from a sequence of events following the alleged rape of a minor girl in Unnao in June 2017 by Kuldeep Singh Senger , the appellant's brother and a then-MLA, who has since been convicted for the rape. The present case relates to the assault on the victim's father, Surendra , on April 3, 2018, after he had travelled to Unnao for a court hearing. Surendra was brutally assaulted and later died in police custody. The trial of this case, along with others arising from the Unnao incidents, was transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court in August 2019 to ensure a fair trial.

The trial court judgment found that the assault on Surendra was orchestrated under the "patronage" and "guidance" of the appellant, Jaideep Singh Senger , and his MLA brother. The judgment noted that the appellant was informed about the initial scuffle and allowed the use of his licensed rifle barrel to assault the victim. The court observed that the appellant enjoyed the "sadistic pleasure of thrashing the victim by his goons while parading him throughout the village."

Arguments Presented

Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey, appearing for the appellant, argued for suspension of sentence primarily on medical grounds, stating Senger was diagnosed with oral cancer during custody, underwent surgery at AIIMS, and subsequently developed Dystonic Tremor , requiring physiotherapy not adequately available in prison. The counsel highlighted that the appellant was granted interim bail multiple times due to his medical condition and had not misused this liberty, surrendering as directed. Parity with five co-accused persons whose sentences had been suspended by the High Court was also cited as a ground. It was further submitted that the appellant had served approximately three years in custody out of the ten-year sentence and had paid the fine.

Special Public Prosecutor Nikhil Goel for the CBI, countered that the medical condition was not a valid ground for suspension, citing a medical report from AIIMS dated October 31, 2023, which opined that the appellant was fit to serve his sentence with available jail medical facilities and could consume food without assistance. He argued against parity, noting that co-accused granted suspension had served more than half their sentence, unlike the appellant who had served only about 30%. Mr. Goel emphasized the appellant's role as a "mastermind" and orchestrator of the crime, citing specific paragraphs from the trial court judgment.

Advocate Mehmood Pracha, representing the victim's family, supported the CBI's opposition, stressing the gravity of the offence and the continued apprehension of threats from the accused, due to which the victim and his family are still provided security by the CRPF as directed by the Supreme Court.

Court's Analysis and Decision

The High Court examined the application in light of Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. and precedents from the Supreme Court, including Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Atul Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh , which outline the factors to be considered for suspending sentences, especially in grave cases with sentences of ten years or more (gravity, nature of crime, age, antecedents, public impact, etc.). The Court also referred to Saudan Singh v. State of U.P. , where the Supreme Court suggested serving 50% of the sentence as a broad parameter for suspension in cases other than life imprisonment.

On the medical ground, the Court relied heavily on the AIIMS Medical Board report. The judgment quotes the report, which stated the appellant's upper limb and neck movements were "functional in nature" and "not disabling or needing assistance for any activity of daily living," including consuming food. The Court concluded, "the medical report is clear on point that medical condition of the appellant is not of a nature that he cannot serve the sentence awarded to him, in the jail."

Regarding parity, the Court noted that co-accused whose sentences were suspended had served around five years, exceeding the "broad parameter of 50 per cent" mentioned in Saudan Singh . In contrast, the appellant had served only about three years. The Court found the ground of parity inapplicable.

The Court also took into account the severity and gravity of the offence and the appellant's specific role as detailed in the trial court judgment – being the person under whose "guidance and patronage" the fatal assault occurred. The continued need for CRPF protection for the victim's family underscored the perceived threat.

Concluding its analysis, the Court found no merit in the application based on the medical report, the lack of parity, and the gravity of the offence coupled with the appellant's central role. While acknowledging the appeal will take time, the Court listed the main appeal for hearing on May 3, 2024, along with connected appeals.

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence was dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of deciding the application and would not prejudice the merits of the appeal.