Unnao Rape Survivor Approaches CBI Seeking FIR Against IO for 'Colluding' with Sengar

New Delhi: The survivor of the 2017 Unnao rape case, in which former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar was convicted, has approached the CBI seeking the registration of an FIR against the then-investigating officer, alleging that he was 'hand in glove' with Sengar.

The woman claimed that she and her family continue to face threats from multiple quarters. This development comes amid widespread disappointment after the Delhi High Court recently granted Sengar conditional bail and suspended his life sentence in the case. Sengar, however, remains in jail as he is serving a 10-year sentence for the custodial death of the survivor’s father.

In her complaint, the survivor alleged that the investigating officer conducted the probe dishonestly, with mala fide intentions, in a manner that allowed Sengar and other accused to benefit from 'deliberate lapses and manipulation of facts' to secure a favourable outcome. She further alleged that the officer used forged school records in the chargesheet, showing her as a student of a government school with an altered date of birth, although she had never attended that school.

The victim also stated that the chargesheet falsely claimed she had used a mobile phone belonging to a woman named Heera Singh, which she denied. Several statements were allegedly attributed to her inaccurately in the chargesheet.

In her six-page complaint, the survivor, who was a minor at the time of the incident, said she had previously filed a complaint against the officer, but no action was taken. Citing the trial court’s order convicting Sengar, which had questioned the recording of her statement by the investigating officer, she accused the officer of protecting Sengar and others from prosecution.

During the trial, the CBI had defended the officer, arguing that his claims regarding the mobile phone were 'mere opinion' and not 'conclusive proof,' and that no assumption could be made that he was siding with the accused.

The court, however, noted, 'There is more to the story than what meets the eye. It appears that the investigation was not conducted fairly, and the approach of the IO/CBI leaves an impression that the recording of the girl’s statement was intended to discredit the survivor and her family.'