ABDUL RAZACK Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, feeling aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence imposed on him in Sessions Case No. 262/01 on the files of the Court of Sessions, Manjeri, has preferred this Criminal Appeal. The case against the appellant was as follows:

(2.) Before the trial court, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined PWs 1 to 15 and marked Exts. P1 to P16, Material objects MO 1 to MO6 were also produced. The trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to . pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default, it was ordered that he should undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

(3.) The aggrieved appellant attacks the judgment of the court below on various grounds. One of the contentions raised before us was that the defence counsel arranged by the Sessions Court, in terms of Section 304 of the Cr.P.C. read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Legal Aid to Accused Rules, 1992 was a raw junior. The examination of the witnesses in this case started on 7.2,2005. Going by Annexure-A1 produced along with Crl.MA No. 8247/09, it is pointed out that the lawyer, who defended the appellant, was enrolled only on 20.10.2002. That means, he has less than three years' practice and so, the engagement of such a lawyer was contrary to the aforementioned provision of the Cr.P.C. and the Rules of the Legal Aid to Accused Rules, 1992, it is submitted. The defence arranged by the State for the appellant, who cannot afford to engage a lawyer by himself, was so poor that he did not get a fair trial. So, the conviction and sentence imposed on him is unsustainable in law, it is submitted. In support of the above submission, reliance was placed on Hie decision of the Apex Court in Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1991 1 SCC 286. The appellant, apart from attacking the conviction and sentence, on other grounds, highlighted the above vitiating circumstance affecting the trial and prayed for remand of the matter, so that he can get the service of an experienced lawyer for cross-examination of the witnesses.