Call Records Show Victim In Communication With Someone During 'Alleged Rape': Kuldeep Sengar before Delhi HC
Former MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, on Thursday, before the Delhi High Court claimed that per the call detail report of the victim, she was in constant communication with some person at the same time she was allegedly being raped. Senior Advocate Hariharan, representing Sengar, while informing the court of this fact, stated, “This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard”.
The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar heard the appeal filed by Sengar seeking suspension of his sentence.
Senior Advocate N Hariharan first addressed the issue of the prosecutrix's age at the time of the incident. He submitted that there existed uncertainty regarding her age. According to him, neither the school records nor municipal documents confirmed that the prosecutrix was a minor.
Senior Advocate Hariharan added that due to inconsistencies in the reported age, medical and ossification tests had been conducted, and the report from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) indicated that the prosecutrix was not a minor at the relevant time.
Senior Advocate Hariharan further argued that the trial court had misread the call detail records (CDR) in the case. He claimed that although the prosecution alleged that Sengar had three mobile numbers, the phone location data had been wrongly interpreted. He pointed out that all the numbers, at the relevant time, showed the location as Unnao. However, he contended that the alleged place of incident was Maki, which is approximately 15–16 kilometers away from Unnao, and that he was in the direction of Kanpur, not Maki. He argued that the trial court had committed an error in interpreting this data.
Senior Advocate Hariharan also highlighted discrepancies between the two locations, namely Magarwala and Maccharia, suggesting that a palpable mistake had occurred in evaluating the evidence related to bail considerations. Furthermore, he submitted that the CDR and the investigating officer’s deposition indicated that the prosecutrix had been using a mobile phone during the relevant period.
Senior Advocate Hariharan also informed the court that the prosecutrix’s case was linked with another incident, in which she had alleged that she was gang-raped by 2–3 individuals from the same village. According to Senior Advocate Hariharan, she had eloped with one of those individuals and remained in contact with him via phone at the time of the alleged rape in the present case. The court directed Sengar to file a written submission and listed the matter on July 1, 2025.
Background:
Previously, the court considered Kuldeep Singh Senger’s application for interim bail. His legal counsel highlighted delays in his release despite a temporary suspension of his sentence.
Separately, on December 5, a bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma granted interim bail to Sengar after directing the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to submit a comprehensive report on his medical condition to determine whether his treatment could be effectively managed within the jail premises.
The court, in June 2024, denied an appeal seeking suspension of his sentence, emphasizing that “once an accused is convicted, the presumption of innocence is no longer applicable”.
For Appellant: Senior Advocate N Hariharan with Advocate Rahul Poonia
For Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor Ravi Sharma with Advocates Swapnil Choudhary, Ishann Bhardwaj, Sagar, and Madhulika Rai Sharma
For Victim: Advocates Mehmood Pracha, Jatin Bhatt, and Chirag Verma
Case Title: Kuldeep Singh Sengar v CBI (CRL.A.-53/2020)