The Unnao rape case involving former Uttar Pradesh MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar remains one of the most emotionally charged criminal cases in recent Indian judicial history. While the conviction by a trial court in 2019 appeared to bring closure, the ongoing appeal before the Delhi High Court has reopened critical legal questions questions that go beyond personalities, politics, or media narratives.
- I. How the Case Began: A Timeline Often Overlooked
- II. The Core Prosecution Story and Its Structural Weakness
- III. The Problem of Shifting Timelines
- IV. Age Determination and the POCSO Question
- V. Sole Testimony and the Standard of “Wholly Reliable”
- VI. Burden of Proof and Alibi
- VII. The Accident Case: Context, Not Proof
- VIII. Media Trial vs Judicial Record
- IX. What the Appeal Will Decide
- Conclusion: Why Re-Examination Is Not Injustice
This article does not seek to determine guilt or innocence. Instead, it examines whether the legal foundations of the conviction, as recorded in judicial orders, withstand appellate scrutiny.
- The Unnao case conviction of former MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar is under appeal, with the Delhi High Court suspending the sentence after noting substantial questions of law.
- The appeal highlights key legal issues including contradictory timelines of the alleged offence, acquittal of the alleged facilitator, disputed age determination under POCSO, and concerns over burden of proof and evaluation of electronic evidence.
- The High Court will not retry facts but will assess whether the trial court’s reasoning, application of law, and evidentiary standards meet the threshold required to sustain the conviction.
I. How the Case Began: A Timeline Often Overlooked
Contrary to popular belief, the case did not begin with allegations against Kuldeep Singh Sengar.
June 2017: The First FIR
- On 21 June 2017, a gangrape FIR was lodged against Naresh Tiwari (driver) and Shubham Singh (engineering student).
- The complainant gave statements to police, court (Section 164 CrPC), and media.
- No allegation was made against Sengar at this stage, despite police presence, media interviews, and judicial proceedings.
August 2017: Entry of Sengar
More Read
- Nearly 2–2.5 months later, the complainant wrote to the Chief Minister alleging that on 4 June 2017, she was raped by Kuldeep Singh Sengar.
- This allegation arose after Sengar intervened in the earlier gangrape case, objecting to the implication of Shubham’s mother (Shashi Singh) and sister (Nidhi).
This delay, while not fatal in law, becomes relevant when examined alongside subsequent inconsistencies.
II. The Core Prosecution Story and Its Structural Weakness
The prosecution’s central allegation was that:
- The prosecution’s central allegation was that:
- The offence occurred at Sengar’s residence.
However, the trial court acquitted Shashi Singh, finding:
- No call records
- No witness testimony
- No evidence of any relationship between her, the complainant, or Sengar
This raises a fundamental legal question:
If the alleged facilitator was acquitted, how did the complainant reach the accused?
Criminal law requires the prosecution to establish the chain of events, not merely the end allegation. The conviction, however, proceeds without reconstructing this broken link.
III. The Problem of Shifting Timelines
One of the most striking features of the case is the change in timing of the alleged rape:
| Source | Time Mentioned |
| Complaint to CM | 2:00 PM |
| Media interview | 6:00 PM |
| FIR / Trial version | 8:00 PM |
The defence presented alibi material for the earlier timings, including photographic and location-based evidence. The trial court ultimately accepted the 8:00 PM version, but without a reasoned reconciliation of why the earlier versions were discarded.
In criminal jurisprudence, time is not a minor detail it directly affects:
- Presence
- Opportunity
- Alibi
Appellate courts generally require explicit reasoning when one version is preferred over others. That reasoning is sparse in the trial judgment.
IV. Age Determination and the POCSO Question
The application of the POCSO Act significantly aggravated the sentence.
However, the record shows:
- Three different dates of birth across documents
- A private school register relied upon by the trial court, whose principal admitted tampering
- A forged transfer certificate
- Government school records indicating 1998 birth
- Medical and forensic evidence placing the complainant above 18 years
Under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, medical opinion assumes importance when documentary records are unreliable.
The High Court, while suspending the sentence, has already flagged this as a substantial legal issue.
V. Sole Testimony and the Standard of “Wholly Reliable”
Indian law permits conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, but only when the testimony is found to be “wholly reliable.”
In this case:
- The trial court acknowledged contradictions
- Yet did not explicitly record a finding of “wholly reliable”
- Nor did it explain why material inconsistencies did not affect the substratum of the case
This distinction matters because appellate courts do not reassess credibility but they do assess whether the correct legal test was applied.
VI. Burden of Proof and Alibi
The defence argued that:
- Call Detail Records (CDRs) placed the accused away from the alleged location
- The prosecution suggested possible manipulation but did not lead expert evidence
The trial court proceeded to analyse technical data on its own and rejected the alibi. Critics argue this led to a subtle inversion of burden, where the accused was effectively required to prove absence rather than the prosecution proving presence beyond reasonable doubt.
VII. The Accident Case: Context, Not Proof
The deaths of the complainant’s relatives in a road accident deeply influenced public perception.
However:
- Investigations by CBI, IIT Delhi, and CRRI found no evidence of conspiracy
- The accused was discharged
Legally, this does not exonerate or incriminate him in the rape case but it does weaken the narrative of absolute, unchallengeable power often cited to explain every inconsistency.
VIII. Media Trial vs Judicial Record
The Unnao case demonstrates a broader systemic issue:
- Media narratives often compress complex litigation into moral binaries
- Appellate courts, however, operate on records, not outrage
The Delhi High Court’s decision to suspend sentence does not declare innocence. It acknowledges that the appeal raises serious questions of law, not frivolous defences.
IX. What the Appeal Will Decide
The High Court will not retry the case. It will examine:
- Whether the conviction can stand after acquittal of the alleged facilitator
- Whether contradictions in timing were legally reconciled
- Whether POCSO was correctly applied
- Whether the burden of proof remained where the law places it
The outcome may range from:
- Partial relief (sentence reduction / POCSO removal)
- Remand
- Or acquittal
Conclusion: Why Re-Examination Is Not Injustice
Justice is not weakened by scrutiny. It is weakened when scrutiny is replaced by certainty.
The Unnao rape case now stands at a point where law must speak louder than narrative. Whatever the final outcome, it must rest on reasoned legality, not symbolism.
That is the only standard a constitutional democracy can afford.
