Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 2024
- Case Background: The appellant, Ashok, was accused of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl in 2009. He was convicted by the Trial Court under various sections of the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and sentenced to death. The High Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.
- Supreme Court Appeal:
- The appellant’s defense highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies, procedural lapses, and inadequate legal representation.
- It was argued that the appellant’s right to a fair trial was compromised, notably by the absence of legal aid during critical trial stages and inadequate examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
- Observations by the Court:
- Witness Testimonies: The reliability of key eyewitness accounts (PW-1 and PW-2) was questioned due to inconsistencies and potential tutoring.
- Procedural Lapses: Crucial incriminating evidence was not put to the appellant during his examination under Section 313, violating his right to defense.
- Legal Aid: The appellant was not provided timely and competent legal aid, affecting his ability to defend himself effectively.
- Legal Principles:
- The judgment emphasized the fundamental right to legal aid under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and Article 39-A, which mandates fair trials and competent legal representation.
- It reiterated the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards, particularly in serious cases with potential life or death sentences.
- Judgment:
- The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant due to significant procedural irregularities, lack of competent legal aid, and failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- It directed the cancellation of bail bonds and commended legal counsel for their assistance in the case.
- Directives:
- The judgment included recommendations for improving the legal aid system, ensuring effective representation for accused persons, and enhancing the role of Public Prosecutors in fair trial proceedings.
The case underscores the importance of procedural fairness, adequate legal representation, and strict adherence to constitutional rights in criminal trials.