Why the Delhi High Court Suspended Kuldeep Sengar’s Life Sentence — and Why He Is Still in Jail

The decision by a division bench of the Delhi High Court to suspend the life sentence of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case has reignited debate around judicial discretion, survivor safety, and the interpretation of criminal law. While the order offers Sengar partial relief, it does not mean his release from prison — at least not yet.

What sentence was the High Court examining?

Sengar has two criminal appeals pending before the Delhi High Court. The first challenges the life sentence awarded in 2019 for the rape of a minor under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The second appeal is against a separate 10-year sentence awarded in 2020 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, relating to the death of the survivor’s father in judicial custody.

This week’s order concerns only the rape conviction. The court has suspended the life sentence in that case pending appeal. However, since the 10-year sentence in the custodial death case remains in force — and the verdict in that appeal is still reserved — Sengar cannot be released from jail at present.

The key legal question: Was Sengar a ‘public servant’?

The most significant reasoning in the High Court’s order relates to the classification of Sengar as a “public servant”. The trial court had convicted him under Section 5(c) of the POCSO Act, which deals with “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” committed by a public servant, attracting a harsher punishment — including life imprisonment.

The trial court relied on the definition of “public servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), which explicitly includes legislators such as MLAs. However, the High Court disagreed with this approach.

The bench held that since the POCSO Act does not define “public servant” on its own, courts must look to definitions it explicitly permits — including those under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), not the PCA. Under Section 21 of the IPC, legislators are not included as public servants. The Supreme Court has also consistently held that MPs and MLAs are not “in the service or pay of the government”.

On this basis, the High Court made a prima facie observation that Sengar may not fall within the category warranting life imprisonment under Section 5 of the POCSO Act.

Why sentence suspension was considered permissible

When appellate courts consider suspending a sentence, they weigh multiple factors: the seriousness of the offence, the length of sentence already served, the likelihood of the appeal being heard soon, and whether continued incarceration would amount to undue hardship.

In this case, the court noted that even if the offence were to fall under Section 3 of the POCSO Act (penetrative sexual assault), the applicable punishment at the time of the offence — before the 2019 amendments that enhanced penalties — prescribed a minimum sentence of seven years under Section 4.

Sengar has already spent more than seven years and five months in custody. This, combined with the legal doubt over the aggravated offence provision, persuaded the bench that suspending the life sentence pending appeal was justified.

What about the survivor’s safety concerns?

The Unnao case has long been marked by serious threats to the survivor and her family. In 2019, the Supreme Court of India transferred all related cases from Uttar Pradesh to Delhi after a road crash killed two of the survivor’s aunts and left her and her lawyer critically injured. The court ordered day-to-day trials, ₹25 lakh compensation, and CRPF security cover for the survivor, her family and her counsel.

Threat perception has continued to feature prominently in judicial decisions. As recently as January 2024, the Delhi High Court refused to suspend the sentence of Sengar’s brother, Jaideep Singh Sengar, citing the impact on public confidence and the prolonged intimidation faced by the survivor’s family.

Why the High Court took a different view this time

In the present order, the division bench explicitly rejected the argument that Sengar must remain in custody solely due to threat perception. The court reasoned that such concerns cannot override legal entitlement to sentence suspension, especially when protective measures are already in place.

Noting that the survivor currently has CRPF security, the bench observed that courts cannot keep a person incarcerated on the assumption that law enforcement agencies may fail to perform their duties. Ensuring safety, the court stressed, is the responsibility of the state, not a justification for denying procedural relief.

What happens next?

The Central Bureau of Investigation is expected to challenge the suspension order before the Supreme Court. Separately, the Delhi High Court’s verdict on Sengar’s appeal in the custodial death case will determine whether he remains behind bars.

For now, the ruling highlights a sharp tension in criminal justice: between legal interpretation and public confidence, between procedural safeguards for the accused and the lived realities of survivors. The final word on Sengar’s guilt and punishment will come only when the appeals are decided on merits — a process that continues to test the system’s ability to deliver justice without fear or favour.