Delhi High Court dismissed appeal by Unnao survivor seeking death penalty for Kuldeep Singh Sengar citing delay. Bench of Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja refused condonation of 1,945 days delay.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Unnao rape survivor’s appeal in connection with the custodial death of her father soughting a higher punishment for former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar. She requested that Sengar be awarded the death penalty.
A bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja said the survivor failed to establish “sufficient cause” for condoning a delay of 1,945 days.
Background
The Unnao rape case involved former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, who was accused in 2017 of raping a minor after luring her with a job promise. The survivor initially faced difficulty in getting an FIR registered, allegedly due to political influence. The matter gained national attention in April 2018 when she attempted self-immolation outside the Chief Minister’s residence, highlighting police inaction.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court Orders Forensic Test of Unnao Gang Rape Survivor’s Voice Sample
Around the same time, her father was arrested following a complaint by Sengar’s associate, which the survivor claimed was done to intimidate the family. He died in custody on April 9, 2018, with reports indicating multiple injuries, raising concerns of custodial violence. The case was later handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which registered multiple charges including rape and custodial death.
In 2019, a suspicious road accident injured the survivor and her lawyer, prompting Supreme Court intervention and transfer of the trial to Delhi. In December 2019, Sengar was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for rape and 10 years for the custodial death case, exposing serious issues of abuse of power and police complicity.
Arguments of Parties:
Senior advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey appeared for Jaideep Sengar and argued that the survivor had been participating in proceedings from the beginning, and there was no basis to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
The survivor’s counsel, Mehmood Pracha, previously argued that she was living under adverse circumstances and described it as “a miracle” that she was able to pursue other cases.
Meanwhile, Kuldeep Sengar’s counsel, advocate Kanhaiya Singhal, argued that the case reflected “conscious inaction.”
The CBI counsel informed the court that the agency had accepted the trial court’s conviction and sentencing order and asked the court to decide the issue.
Court’s Decision
The court noted that the limitation period for filing an appeal against the trial court’s judgment expired in May 2022. It added that the Tis Hazari sessions court judgment sentencing Sengar to life imprisonment in the rape case was delivered in March 2020, but the appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court only in September 2025.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Refuses to Withdraw CRPF Security Cover for Unnao Rape Survivor
According to the bench, the appeal against the trial court’s 2020 conviction and sentencing was submitted after an “unexplained” delay of 1945 days.
The Court observed that although the term “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be interpreted liberally, such flexibility cannot be used as a routine basis to excuse excessive and unexplained delays. A party seeking condonation must act in good faith, show due diligence, and provide a clear, reasonable explanation for the delay. Relying on precedents, including Shivamma, the Court reiterated that while a liberal approach is permissible, the applicant must present convincing reasons establishing the existence of “sufficient cause.” Though it is not necessary to explain every single day’s delay with precision, as noted in Katiji, a satisfactory and credible explanation remains essential.
The Court further referred to H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah (2025), emphasizing that the duration of delay is a crucial factor. Where a party has lost its legal right due to prolonged inaction, it cannot automatically claim relief under the principle of substantial justice. The explanation offered must first pass the test of bona fides and inspire confidence before the Court exercises its discretion. Similarly, in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector (2024), it was reiterated that while Section 5 may be applied liberally, it cannot override the substantive law of limitation. Even where “sufficient cause” is claimed, condonation remains discretionary, particularly in cases involving negligence, lack of diligence, or inordinate delay.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the appellant was fully aware of the impugned judgment and had actively participated in related proceedings, including appearances before the Trial Court and involvement in connected appeals. Despite having access to legal representation and certified copies of the orders, the appellant chose not to file the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. The reasons advanced financial hardship, accommodation issues, health concerns, and alleged threats were found to be vague, unsupported by evidence, and lacking details regarding their duration. Mere assertions without substantiation were held insufficient to constitute “sufficient cause.”
It said,
“The grounds urged in the application, namely financial constraints, issues relating to accommodation, alleged physical debilitation, and assertions of threats or harassment, do not inspire confidence at the stage of considering the application for condonation of delay. These grounds are vague in nature, unsupported by any documentary material, and do not disclose the period during which such circumstances prevailed. Mere assertions, without substantiation, cannot constitute sufficient cause.”
The plea of financial difficulty was also rejected, as the appellant had been represented by private counsel in multiple proceedings and had received substantial compensation. No material was produced to demonstrate genuine inability to approach the Court within time or to explain why legal aid options were not utilized. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation is grounded in certainty and public policy, and condoning such a prolonged delay would unfairly prejudice the accused by exposing them to continued uncertainty and potential enhancement of punishment long after trial.
It said,
“This Court is also required to bear in mind the consequences that would enure if such an inordinate delay were to be condoned at this belated stage. Entertaining a belated appeal seeking enhancement of conviction and sentence after an unexplained delay of several years would seriously prejudice the rights of the accused, who would be exposed to the uncertainty of prolonged litigation and the possibility of aggravated penal consequences long after the conclusion of trial. Such an approach would be contrary to the settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence. To condone such an extraordinary delay in the absence of “sufficient cause” would defeat these principles and open the floodgates for belated claims.”
Invoking the maxim “vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt” (the law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights), the Court held that the appellant’s conduct reflected negligence rather than inability. It concluded that this was a case of deliberate inaction, disentitling the appellant from equitable relief. As no “sufficient cause” was established and the delay remained grossly unexplained, the application for condonation was dismissed, and consequently, the appeal was rejected as barred by limitation.
Additional Case Details
Kuldeep Sengar was convicted of raping the minor survivor and sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his life on December 20, 2019. The girl was allegedly kidnapped and raped by Sengar in 2017 when she was a minor.
On March 13, 2020, Kuldeep Sengar and his brother Jaideep Sengar alias Atul Singh were sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment by the trial court in the custodial death case. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 10 lakh.
The survivor’s father had been arrested under the Arms Act at the alleged behest of the accused and died in custody on April 9, 2018, due to police brutality, as alleged. The trial court had said “no leniency” could be shown for killing a family’s “sole bread earner”.
However, the trial court did not convict the accused for murder under the IPC. Instead, it awarded the maximum sentence of 10 years for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC, after holding there was no intention to kill.
The case was transferred to Delhi from the trial court in Uttar Pradesh following directions of the Supreme Court on August 1, 2019.
Case Title: MS A S Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS. CRL.A. 1602/2025
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE