The Delhi High Court, hearing Kuldeep Sengar’s appeal in the Unnao rape case, said the medical report will be considered to resolve the victim’s age dispute. Sengar’s counsel argued he was not at the scene, citing CDR data and alibi.
HC to Consider Medical Report in Victim’s Age Dispute
The Delhi High Court, while hearing the arguements on the final appeal filed by former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the Unnao Rape case, who disputed the age of the victim, on Wednesday said that in case of any dispute over the age of the victim, the medical report will be considered.
Division bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan said the dispute over the age of the victim raised by the counsel and indicated that the medical documents will be considered. After hearing the arguements the matter has been listed on July 16 for further hearing.
Counsel Argues Alibi and Contradictions
Senior counsel N Hariharan alongwith Advocate SPM Tripathi and Siddharth Yadav, appeared for Sengar and argued that there is a major contradiction in relation to the time of the incident and the presence of the accused. It was submitted that the time of the alleged incident, as indicated, was about 8 PM to 8.30 PM on the night of June 4, 2017.
At this time, Sengar was not at the place of the incident; he was in Unnao as per the Call Details Record (CDR). It is also the argument that no one can reach the place of the incident from Unnao, which is at a distance of 15 kilometres, in a short time to seconds, as the location of Sengar was in Unnao at 8.28 PM, as per the CDR.
Dispute Over Age Proofs
On July 7, it was argued that there is no substantial proof of age, and there are as many as four age proofs showing different dates of birth. Some certificates show her age as a minor, whereas some show her major in July 2017. The counsel for the accused submitted that the trial court overlooked this fact and relied on a school certificate issued by a private school.
Though the society of the school was registered at a very late stage, the senior counsel said, adding that the proof of age issued by the private school was not a reliable one. However, the trial court overlooked this aspect.
Questions Over Medical Evidence
Senior counsel Hariharan also referred to medical evidence of age determination. He referred to 4 bone ossification test reports. The first one was done at Unnao, the second one was done at RML Lucknow, the third one was done by a joint panel at RML Lucknow, and the fourth test was done at AIIMS Delhi by the team of doctors. He questioned which report is to be relied upon.
Case Background and Other Legal Points
On May 26, it was argued that Sengar was an MLA from Bangarmau; however, the incident was reported from Makhi Police Station of Unnao, UP. Though he was not an MLA from that area. Senior counsel had also argued that though the co-accused Shashi Singh was acquitted from this case, Sengar was also convicted for the offence of criminal Conspiracy. How could he be convicted for the offence of criminal Conspiracy once the co-accused is acquitted in this case.
Sengar was convicted and sentenced by the District Judge Dharmesh Sharma in 2018. He was also convicted and sentenced to 10 years Imprisonment alongwith others in the Unnao Custodial death case. Both appeals are pending before the Delhi High Court.
This case was transferred to Delhi from Uttar Pradesh on a direction passed by the Supreme Court. Recently, the Supreme Court has passed a direction for the expeditious disposal of an appeal pending before the Delhi High Court. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)