ASHOK [APPELLANT] Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [RESPONDENT]
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 771 OF 2024
(3JB, Abhay S. Oka and Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih JJ., delivered by )
A tragic incident unfolded in 2009 when a ten-year-old girl was brutally raped and murdered by a tubewell operator. The young victim, along with her seven-year-old cousin, had gone to graze goats when she sought water from the accused. The accused, taking advantage of the situation, lured the girl into a cabin and committed the heinous crime. The incident was reported to the police, and the accused was subsequently arrested and charged with rape, murder, and atrocities against a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person. The trial court found the accused guilty on all counts and sentenced him to death.
However, the High Court, while upholding the conviction, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case is currently being heard. The Supreme Court has granted bail to the accused, who has already spent 13 years in prison. This case highlights the disturbing prevalence of sexual violence against children and the importance of stringent punishment for such heinous crimes. It also raises questions about the appropriate sentence for such offenses and the role of the judiciary in ensuring justice for victims.
The defense argued that the key witness, PW-2, was likely tutored and his testimony was unreliable. The defense also questioned the credibility of the recovery of evidence, as the recovery memo lacked details and no blood analysis was conducted. Additionally, the defense pointed out that the accused was not confronted with incriminating circumstances during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC, potentially affecting his right to a fair trial. The prosecution, while supporting the conviction, acknowledged the importance of legal aid for the accused.
The Supreme Court found that the appellant’s examination under Section 313 of the CrPC was inadequate, as crucial incriminating details were not put to him. This omission, the Court argued, prejudiced the appellant’s right to a fair trial. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s explanation of the incriminating circumstances was essential for a just adjudication. Given the significant time lapse since the incident and the appellant’s prolonged incarceration, the Court concluded that remedying the procedural defect through a remand was not feasible. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, highlighting the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards enshrined in Section 313 of the CrPC.
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of providing effective legal aid to accused persons, particularly in serious cases. The Court outlined the responsibilities of public prosecutors to ensure fair trials and to request legal aid for unrepresented accused. The Court also stressed the need for qualified legal aid lawyers, especially in cases involving potential life imprisonment or death penalties. The Supreme Court’s judgment aims to strengthen the right to legal aid and ensure fair trials for all accused persons.
