The Delhi HC listed former MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar's appeal against his conviction in the Unnao custodial death case for May. The court recently dismissed the rape victim's plea to enhance Sengar's sentence, citing a significant delay.
The Delhi High Court on Monday listed the appeal against conviction in the custodial death case of the Unnao rape victim's father for next month. Former MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar and others have challenged their conviction. Sengar is serving 10 years Sentence in this case. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma listed the matter for arguements on May 15, 18, 19 and 20. Sengar and others have challenged the judgment of conviction of March 4, 2020, and the order on sentence of March 13, 2020, passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts in CBI FIR. The case was originally registered at District Unnao, Uttar Pradesh.
Victim's Appeal for Harsher Sentence Dismissed
On April 20, the high court had dismissed, on the grounds of delay of 1,945 days, the appeal of the Unnao rape victim seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to former MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar and 6 others in her father's custodial death case. A division bench headed by Justice Navin Chawla had dismissed the application for condonation of delay and subsequently the appeal seeking the enhancement of the sentence. The high court had said that the appellant had failed to establish any "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. "The delay being gross, unexplained, and attributable to negligence, the application deserves to be dismissed," the High Court had said. The division bench had said, "The present case, therefore, is not one of inability, but of deliberate inaction and negligence. The conduct of the appellant disentitles her from seeking equitable relief of condonation of delay." "In such circumstances, this Court finds no reason to exercise its discretionary power, as doing so would defeat the very object of the law of limitation and erode the discipline it seeks to enforce," the High Court said in the judgement passed on April 20. The bench held, "Since the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, consequently, the captioned appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation." The high court noted that the appellant, despite having full knowledge of the impugned judgment and having actively participated in related proceedings, failed to avail the statutory remedy within the prescribed time.
Details of the Victim's Plea
The Unnao rape victim had filed an appeal and sought conversion of the offence of death into the offence of murder. She had sought capital punishment or at least a life sentence. The appellant, who is the daughter of the deceased victim, had sought an alteration of the conviction to offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364A IPC and enhancement of the sentence.
Arguments for Condoning Delay
Advocate Mehmood Pracha, counsel for the appellant, had submitted that the delay, though considerable, is neither deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide conduct on the part of the appellant. It was submitted that the appellant is a rape victim and she is under constant threat to her life and is already in a precarious position being a rape victim, and cannot be expected to be totally vigilant while pursuing litigation and that the reasons for delay provide "sufficient" explanation.
Respondent's Counter-Arguments
Senior advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey appeared for Kuldeep Singh Sengar, Advocate SPM Tripathi appeared for Jaideep Senger. Advocate Kanhiya Singhal had submitted that out of the total compensation amount, Rs. 10 lacs have already been paid by the Respondents, and another sum of Rs 25 lakh has been paid by the State of Uttar Pradesh to the appellant, and hence, the stance adopted by the appellant regarding financial constraint becomes unsustainable. It was further submitted that the merits of the case are wholly irrelevant at the stage of considering an application for condonation of delay. The application must stand or fall on the sufficiency of the explanation offered for such delay, and not on the nature of the underlying dispute. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)