IN RE: GURUMURTHY AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants, four in number, have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of West Tanjavur Division under various Sections of the I. P. C. The first Appellant had been sentenced to imprisonment for life for offences under Ss. 120 -B and 302, I. P. C. The second Appellant had been sentenced to death under Section 302 , I. P. C. and imprisonment for life under Section 120 -B, I. P. C, and the third Appellant has been sentenced to death and imprisonment for life respectively under Sections 302 and 120 -B, I. P. C. It is unnecessary to refer to other convictions and sentences.

(2.) A preliminary objection is raised by Sri N. T. Vanamamalai appearing on behalf of the Appellants that the entire trial is vitiated in so far as the first 3 Appellants are concerned, as the learned Sessions Judge had admittedly not appointed a State counsel to defend the said Appellants. It is pointed out that under R. 166 of the Criminal Rules of Practice add Circular Orders, 1958, the Sessions Judge has an imperative duty to engage a pleader to defend an accused person in grave charges like murder and that the action of the Sessions Judge in not appointing a State Counsel to defend the accused is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except according to procedure established by law. It is, therefore, alleged that the trial is vitiated and totally void.

(3.) S . 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under this code in any such Court, may of right be defended by a pleader. Admittedly, Appellants 1 to 3 cannot complain of any breach of this section as they have clearly expressed that they did not want to engage a counsel for defending themselves; and it is not therefore suggested that the provisions of S. 340, Cr. P.C. are in any way violated in this case.