Unnao rape survivor moves CBI alleging IO colluded with Sengar

The victim of the 2017 Unnao rape case, in which ex-BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar was convicted, has approached the CBI seeking the registration of an FIR against the then-Investigating Officer (IO) for being “hand-in-glove” with the former legislator. The woman also claimed that she and her family were facing threats from various quarters.

The development comes amid growing disappointment in several quarters after the Delhi High Court recently granted conditional bail to Sengar and suspended his life sentence in the case.

Sengar, however, will remain in jail as he is also serving a 10-year term for the custodial death of the rape survivor’s father.

In her complaint, the victim alleged that the investigating officer conducted the probe dishonestly, with mala fides, and in such a way that Sengar and the other accused may get the benefits of “deliberate lapses and manipulation of facts introduced, and secure a favourable outcome”.

She alleged that the officer used forged school documents in the chargesheet, wherein she was shown as a student of a government school and her date of birth was also shown differently, whereas, in reality, she never took admission in that school.

The victim also claimed that the officer mentioned in the chargesheet that she was using the mobile phone of a woman named Heera Singh, even though she never used that phone.

Also, several statements were falsely attributed to her in the chargesheet, she claimed.

In the six-page complaint, the victim, who was a minor at the time of her rape in 2017, claimed she filed a complaint earlier as well, but no action was taken against the officer.

Citing the trial court order convicting Sengar, where the court questioned the recording of her statement by the investigation officer, she accused the officer of being “hand in glove” with the accused to save them (Sengar and others) from prosecution.

The CBI had challenged the observations of the trial court in the Delhi High Court.

During the trial, the CBI had said that the investigating officer’s claims on the mobile phone used by the victim were “mere opinion” and not a “conclusive proof”, and merely on that basis, “no assumption can be raised that the officer was siding with the accused party”.

“There is more to the story than what meets the eye, as it appears that the investigation was not conducted fairly, and the approach of the IO/CBI leaves an impression that recording of the girl’s statement was with a view to discredit the version of the victim/survivor and her family members in the present case,” the court had said.