NEW DELHI: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday acquitted Ashok, a man convicted of rape and murder, citing serious lapses in his legal representation during the trial. The Bench, comprising Justices AS Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, highlighted procedural violations, including inadequate cross-examination and non-compliance with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The Court noted that Ashok was not provided proper legal representation during the critical trial stages, such as the framing of charges and the examination-in-chief of key prosecution witnesses. The lack of a lawyer deprived him of the opportunity to object to incriminating questions or challenge evidence effectively.
Section 313 of the CrPC, which mandates that the accused be allowed to explain incriminating circumstances, was also not adhered to. The Bench expressed surprise that both the Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court failed to address this glaring non-compliance.
“The appellant is entitled to acquittal on the ground of the failure to put incriminating material to him in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC,” the Court remarked, adding that imposing the death penalty under such circumstances was “shocking” and “a travesty of justice.”
ALSO READ: SC questions Senthil Balaji’s quick return as TN Minister post-bail – THE NEW INDIAN
Case Background
Ashok was convicted in 2012 for the rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl under Sections 376 (rape), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
According to the prosecution, the victim, accompanied by her 7-year-old cousin, went to a pasture to graze goats. While quenching her thirst near a tube well, she encountered Ashok, who allegedly raped and murdered her. The younger cousin reportedly witnessed the crime and informed the victim’s father. The Trial Court sentenced Ashok to death, which the Allahabad High Court later commuted to life imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction, emphasizing lapses in fair trial procedures.
The Bench refrained from directly criticizing the appointed legal aid lawyers but observed that their cross-examination of witnesses lacked depth and precision. Key questions that could have challenged the prosecution’s case were left unasked. The Court also pointed out the prejudicial impact of recording a witness’s testimony without the accused having legal representation. “Such actions compromise the rights of the accused and undermine the fairness of the trial,” it said.