In a candid interview with India Today TV, advocate Mehmood Pracha, who represents the Unnao rape survivor, made serious allegations against the Central government, the Uttar Pradesh government, and the Central Bureau of Investigation, claiming they were collectively acting in favour of expelled BJP MLA and convicted offender Kuldeep Singh Sengar. Pracha alleged that the combined influence of these institutions had tilted the legal process against the survivor, who comes from a disadvantaged background, making it extremely difficult for her to secure justice.
His remarks came shortly after the Delhi High Court suspended Sengar’s life sentence and granted him bail in the 2017 Unnao rape case involving a minor. The court’s reasoning, particularly its observation that Sengar did not qualify as a public servant under the POCSO Act, sparked widespread debate and criticism, with many questioning the implications of the ruling.
Pracha said that even the trial court, while convicting Sengar, had highlighted major flaws in the CBI’s investigation. According to him, the judgment clearly recorded that the investigating officer was “hand in glove” with Sengar, had inserted evidence in the chargesheet that favoured the accused, and had failed to conduct a fair and thorough probe into the case.
He argued that such conduct by a CBI officer could not have occurred in isolation. Since the agency functions under the Centre, Pracha claimed the officer couldn't act in this manner without implicit or explicit backing from those “at the helm of affairs”. He further alleged that both the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government had used their full institutional power and influence to weaken the survivor’s case at every stage.
The advocate also alleged that the Centre and the state government had hired senior and influential lawyers in the Supreme Court to withdraw the security cover provided to the survivor and her family. While the authorities succeeded in removing security for the family, Pracha said they were unable to do the same in the case of the survivor herself.
He pointed out that soon after the Central Reserve Police Force security was withdrawn, members of the survivor’s family were attacked, which, according to him, demonstrated a coordinated effort by the Centre and the state government that left the family exposed and vulnerable.
Referring to proceedings in the matter titled Sengar vs CBI, Pracha said that during the hearings, nearly 90 per cent of the arguments were made by the survivor’s counsel, with the CBI largely limiting itself to formally adopting those submissions. He questioned why the agency appeared to play such a passive role in a case where it was expected to aggressively prosecute the convicted offender.
Pracha further criticised the CBI for its response to the trial court’s observations. Instead of taking action against the investigating officer who had been pulled up by the court, he said the agency chose to approach the High Court seeking removal of the strictures passed against that officer. According to Pracha, this conduct reinforced the perception that the system was shielding its own rather than standing firmly with the survivor.
