ASHOK versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

ASHOK versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

The conviction could not be sustained because the sole eyewitness's evidence was not of sterling quality and, crucially, material incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were not put to the accused in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination causing prejudice that could not be cured after the long passage of time; recovery alleged at the accused's instance was not proved; there was also failure to provide timely and effective legal aid; accordingly the impugned judgments were set aside and the appellant acquitted.

Parties
Appellant: Ashok; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against Conviction and Sentence From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Legal Topics
Rape, Murder, Death Penalty, Section 313 Cr.p.c., Role of Public Prosecutor, Legal Aid to Accused, Recovery of Articles, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Constitutional Law Legal Aid Rape Murder Death Penalty +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashok

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against Conviction and Sentence From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Correctness of conviction and sentence under Sections 376, 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989
  2. 2 Sufficiency and quality of eyewitness evidence (PW-2) and value of 'last seen together' evidence
  3. 3 Admissibility and proof of recovery at accused's instance under Section 27 Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction could not be sustained because the sole eyewitness's evidence was not of sterling quality and, crucially, material incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were not put to the accused in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination causing prejudice that could not be cured after the long passage of time; recovery alleged at the accused's instance was not proved; there was also failure to provide timely and effective legal aid; accordingly the impugned judgments were set aside and the appellant acquitted.