Since the disruption in LLM technology brought about by the release of GPT-3 and ChatGPT, LLMs have shown remarkable promise in programming-related tasks. While code generation remains a popular field of research, code evaluation using LLMs remains a problem with no conclusive solution. In this paper, we focus on LLM-based code evaluation and attempt to fill in the existing gaps. We propose multi-agentic novel approaches using \emph{question-specific rubrics} tailored to the problem statement, arguing that these perform better for logical assessment than the existing approaches that use \emph{question-agnostic rubrics}. To address the lack of suitable evaluation datasets, we introduce two datasets: a Data Structures and Algorithms dataset containing 150 student submissions from a popular Data Structures and Algorithms practice website, and an Object Oriented Programming dataset comprising 80 student submissions from undergraduate computer science courses. In addition to using standard metrics (Spearman Correlation, Cohen’s Kappa), we additionally propose a new metric called as Leniency, which quantifies evaluation strictness relative to expert assessment. Our comprehensive analysis demonstrates that \emph{question-specific rubrics} significantly enhance logical assessment of code in educational settings, providing better feedback aligned with instructional goals beyond mere syntactic correctness.