LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Asharfi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Criminal Appeal · 2017 INSC 1205Decided 8 Dec 2017
Criminal Appeal No. 1182 of 2015
Justice Ranjan Gogoi · Justice R. Banumathi

Background

The appellant Asharfi was convicted by a trial court of offences including rape (Section 376(2)(g) IPC) and an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising from an incident on the night of 8/9 December 1995 in which he and a co-accused allegedly forced entry into a house and raped the complainant's wife. The Allahabad High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence (10 years for rape, life imprisonment under the SC/ST Act). The appellant, through an amicus curiae since no one appeared for the State, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the rape conviction and sentence, finding the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, based on the victim's and an eyewitness's testimony plus medical evidence, did not warrant interference. However, it set aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, holding that under the pre-2016 (unamended) version of that provision, applicable since the offence occurred in 1995, a conviction required proof that the offence was committed specifically "on the ground that" the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste, which is a higher standard than the post-2016 amendment's "knowledge" standard. Since the evidence did not establish this caste-based motive/intention, that part of the conviction and the life sentence attached to it could not be sustained. The appeal was partly allowed, and since the appellant had already served over ten years, he was ordered released forthwith (unless wanted in any other case).

Lesson Learnt

The specific legal standard for convicting someone under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act changed in 2016, before the amendment, prosecutors had to prove the crime was committed specifically because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste/Tribe (a tougher bar), not merely that the accused knew of the victim's caste; which version of the law applies depends on when the offence occurred, not when the case is decided.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case