Unnao Survivor Seeks CBI Probe

New Delhi: The survivor of the 2017 Unnao rape case, in which former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar was convicted, has approached the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking registration of an FIR against the then investigating officer. She alleged that the officer was “hand in glove” with the former legislator and acted to shield him from prosecution. The survivor also claimed that she and her family were facing threats from various quarters.

The move comes amid widespread criticism following the Delhi High Court’s recent order granting conditional bail to Sengar and suspending his life sentence.

In her six-page complaint, the survivor alleged that the investigation was conducted dishonestly and with mala fide intent, allowing Sengar and other accused to benefit from what she described as deliberate lapses and manipulation of facts introduced during the probe.

She alleged that forged school records were used in the chargesheet, falsely showing her as a student of a government school and altering her date of birth, despite her never having studied there. She further claimed that the chargesheet wrongly stated she was using the mobile phone of a woman named Heera Singh, even though she never used that phone.

The survivor, who was a minor at the time of the assault in 2017, said she had earlier complained against the investigating officer but no action was taken. She alleged that several statements were falsely attributed to her in the chargesheet.

Referring to the trial court’s judgment convicting Sengar, the survivor pointed out that the court had questioned the manner in which her statement was recorded. She alleged that the investigating officer colluded with the accused to weaken the prosecution case and protect them from conviction.

Meanwhile, the CBI on Friday moved the Supreme Court of India, challenging the Delhi High Court’s order suspending Sengar’s life sentence and granting him bail.

During earlier proceedings, the CBI had argued that the investigating officer’s claims regarding the mobile phone allegedly used by the survivor were merely an opinion and not conclusive proof of bias. It had contended that no presumption could be drawn solely on that basis that the officer was siding with the accused.

However, the trial court had observed that the investigation did not appear to be fair and that the approach of the investigating agency gave an impression that the survivor’s statement was recorded in a manner intended to discredit her and her family.