SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 903

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, JJ.
Kuldeep Singh Sengar – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
CRL.A. 53 of 2020
Decided On : 23-12-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the appellant :Mr N Hariharan Sr Adv, Mr SPM Tripathi, Mr. Amit Sinha, Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr. Rahul Poonia, Mr. Ambuj Singh, Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Ms. Aishwarya Senger, Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Saurabh Dwivedi, Ms. Punya Rekha, Ms. Angara, Ms. Vasundhara N, Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms. Sana Singh, Ms. Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla, Ms. Gauri Ramachandran, Advs. Mr. Manish Vashisht, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Aishwarya Sengar, Mr. Vedansh Vashisht, Mr. Swapan Singhal, Advs.
For the Respondents:Mrs. Anubha Bhardwaj SPP for CBI Along with Mr. Vijay Mishra & Ms. Ananya Shamshery Advs. Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advocate for DCW Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Mr. Sanawar, Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Mr. Kshtij Singh and Mr. Kumail Abbas Advocates for Complainant

Legislators not 'public servants' under Section 21 IPC for POCSO aggravated offenses; sentence suspended post minimum term service pending appeal.

Headnote:The judgment involves offenses under Sections 376, 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 5(c)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Essential facts include an allegation of penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim enticed under false job pretext, leading to conviction and life imprisonment by the trial court in Sessions Case No. 448/2019 arising from FIR No. 96/2018. The court prima facie determined that the appellant, as a legislator, does not qualify as a 'public servant' under Section 21 IPC for aggravated offense applicability, reducing the case to non-aggravated penetrative sexual assault with minimum ten-year punishment already served. Key issues framed include whether suspension of sentence is warranted pending appeal under Section 389 CrPC, and interpretation of 'public servant' under POCSO Act via Section 2(2). Ratio decidendi emphasizes purposive construction limited to defined acts; Section 21 IPC excludes legislators, as held in relevant precedents rejecting extension from other statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act. Pivotal reasoning: trial court's reliance on extraneous definitions erroneous; appellant's alibi, age disputes, and investigation fairness deferred to appeal merits (paras 25-44). The application for suspension of sentence is allowed, with appellant released on bail subject to conditions including security, residency restrictions, weekly reporting, and prohibition on threats; appeal listed for hearing on 15.01.2026.

Table of Content
1. application for sentence suspension pending appeal in sexual assault conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. prosecution evidence and witness testimonies on incident and victim age. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. trial court findings on age, investigation, alibi, and public servant status. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. contentions on age discrepancy, alibi, delay, and threat factors. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. analysis of public servant definition under ipc and pocso applicability. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. rejection of aggravated offense charges under trust or dominance provisions. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
7. principles for sentence suspension under crpc section 389. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
8. consideration of incarceration period and speedy trial rights. (Para 42 , 43 , 44)
9. grant of suspension with protective conditions for victim. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)

1. The present application has been filed by the Appellant under Section 389(1) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1963 ["CrPC"] seeking regular suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The Appellant herein has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376 /363/366 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 ["IPC"] read with Sections 5 (c)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ["POCSO Act"] vide judgment dated 16.12.2019 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge – West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ["learned Trial Court"] in Sessions Case No. 448/2019 arising out of FIR No. 96/2018 registered at Police Station Makhi, Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, re-registered as RC-08(S)/2018, PS CBI/ACB/Lucknow ["Impugned Judgment"]. Vide a separate order on sentence dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the remainder of life, along with a fine of Rs. 25,00,000/- and an additional compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- payable to the mother of the survivor. Against the Impugned Judgment as well as the Order on sentence, the Appellant has approached this Court by way of the Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2020, which is pending adjudication.

3. For a proper adjudication of the present application seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the Appeal, this Court deems it fit to postulate the background which gives rise to the Appeal.

4. The incident of rape upon the Victim/Survivor came to be registered under Case No. SC – 448/2019 arising out of FIR No. 96/2018 at PS Makhi, Unnao under Sections 3 63 , 366, 376, 506 of the IPC and and 4 of the POCSO Act. Investigation into these allegations was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation ["CBI"] vide a Notification dated 12.04.2018 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, after which a case RC 08(S)/2018 dated 12.04.2018 came to be registered in the ACB, CBI, Lucknow Branch.

5. Pertinently, apart from RC 08(S)/2018 which involved the allegation of rape upon the Victim/Survivor, the CBI was also entrusted with the investigation into the following two cases:

(i) RC 09(S)/2018 under Sections 3 23, 504, 506 IPC and /25 Arms Act, lodged against father of the Victim/Survivor; and

(ii) RC 10(S)/2018 under Sections 147, 323, 504 read with Section 302 IPC, lodged by the mother of the Victim/Survivor for the alleged assault upon her husband.

6. Subsequently, another case arising out of FIR No. 316/2018 dated 20.06.2017 under Sections 363 , 366, 376D IPC pertaining to alleged offences of kidnapping, confinement for sexual exploitation and gang rape upon the Victim/Survivor was transferred to CBI for further investigation vide Order dated 13.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in WP (PIL) 01/2018. Resultantly, RC 11(S)/2018 dated

7. A chargesheet was filed by the CBI before the Special Judge (POCSO) CBI – IV, Lucknow on 11.07.2018, which was also supplied to the Appellant as per Section 207 CrPC, an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top