Unnao victim's appeal dismissed by Delhi HC due to 1,945-day delay

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed, on the grounds of delay of 1,945 days, the appeal of Unnao rape victim seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to former MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar and six others in her father's custodial death case.

Add Asianet Newsable as a Preferred Source

The high court dismissed the appeal on the ground of a delay of 1945 days in filing the appeal.

High Court Cites 'Deliberate Inaction and Negligence'

The Division bench headed by Justice Navin Chawla dismissed the application for condonation of delay and subsequently the appeal seeking the enhancement of the sentence of 10 years awarded to Former MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar and six others.

The high court said that the appellant has 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 said.

The division bench 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. "The delay, being inordinate and unexplained, reflects a lack of due diligence. The appellant cannot behave in a casual manner and then approach the Court seeking condonation of delay as a right, without providing reasonable grounds for the delay caused," the bench said.

Victim Sought Harsher Sentence

The trial court had sentenced Sengar to 10 years' imprisonment in this case. 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 victim (appellant) had 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, Delhi, arising out of CBI FIRs which were originally registered as FIR No. 89/2018 and 90/2018 at Police Station Makhi, District Unnao, Uttar Pradesh.

The appellant, who is the daughter of the deceased victim, has preferred the present appeal seeking, inter alia, alteration of conviction to offences punishable under Sections 302 and 364A IPC and enhancement of sentence.

Arguments for Condonation of Delay

Advocate Mehmood Pracha, counsel for the appellant, submitted that the delay, though considerable, is neither deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide conduct on the part of the appellant.

It was contended that the appellant is the daughter of the deceased victim and has been continuously pursuing remedies in relation to a grave and sensitive criminal matter involving the death of her father under circumstances already found to be the result of a criminal conspiracy by the Trial Court.

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. Her counsel also submitted that the appellant has no financial resources to pursue litigation, even though he is appearing pro bono for her.

Respondents' Counter-Arguments

On the other hand, the Respondents are extremely powerful and resourceful individuals. Senior advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey appeared for Kuldeep Singh Sengar, Advocate SPM Tripathi appeared for Jaideep Senger.

Advocate Kanhiya Singhal submitted that out of the total compensation amount, Rs 10 lakhs have already been paid by the Respondents, and another sum of Rs 25 lakhs 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)