Court Documents Reveal How CBI Let Down Unnao Rape Survivor | Exclusive

The high court judgment also points to the trial court observation that it is an “inescapable conclusion” that the Investigating Officer of CBI did not conduct a fair investigation in the matter. (PTI)

Amidst the outrage over the Delhi High Court judgement suspending the life term sentence for former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao rape case, a reading of the order shows the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) also let the survivor down during the course of the case.

The CBI, in fact, admitted before the high court that the Supreme Court had ruled in an earlier case that an MLA is not a public servant as defined under Section 21 IPC. The high court struck down Section 5(c) and 6 of POCSO against Sengar, saying an MLA is not a public servant and hence could not be sentenced to a life term under these provisions. The CBI had asked the high court to “adopt the principle of purposive construction” but it was to no avail.

The high court also noted that when the survivor’s family wanted Sengar tried in 2019 under graver charges of the IPC, saying he was a public servant who committed rape, CBI did not support the survivor in the petition. The agency had then said new charges proposed by the survivor “are not squarely applicable”. The trial court had dismissed the petition in 2019. “The order dated 20.08.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court was not challenged by the Victim, nor was it supported by the CBI,” the Delhi High Court has now noted in its judgment.

The survivor’s family then wanted Sengar to be convicted under Section 376(2)(f) & (k) IPC, and not Section 376(2) IPC and 5 & 6 of POCSO. But it was not to be. Sengar has now been cleared by the court of charges under Section 5 & 6 of POCSO. The HC said Sengar can only be tried under Section 3 of POCSO which has a maximum sentence of seven years, a period that Sengar has already served in jail.

The high court judgment also points to the trial court observation that it is an “inescapable conclusion” that the Investigating Officer of CBI did not conduct a fair investigation in the matter, resulting in a “disadvantage” to the case of survivor and her family members. In fact, the survivor’s family told the high court that even after the investigation was transferred to the CBI, “fairness and impartiality were not ensured”. But the CBI case did end in a conviction in the trial court.

The survivor’s family still told the high court in the present case: “The IO of the CBI worked in collusion with Sengar in order to ensure that the relevant evidence regarding the age of the survivor never sees the light of day and instead, false and fabricated documents prepared by Sengar are produced.”

The CBI has studied the orders of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case and has decided to file an SLP before the Supreme Court at the earliest against the orders of the high court granting bail to Sengar.

The accused filed an appeal and the bail petition was vehemently opposed by CBI as well as the family of the survivor before the Delhi HC. The CBI has filed timely replies and written arguments in this matter and the family of the survivor has also opposed the petition citing safety and threats.