RAMCHANDRA NIVRUTTI MULAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant by the judgment dated 5-11-2004 in sessions Case No. 92 of 2003 has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 and other offences and has been sentenced for imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one day. There is direction for destruction and return of the properties in terms of direction No. 2 of the order. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against his conviction.

(2.) At the hearing of this appeal, on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel submits that the appellant was unrepresented before the Sessions Court, though a lawyer had filed vakalatnama that lawyer had filed a pursis for withdrawing his appearance. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the said request. The lawyer did not turn up for the trial and the matter proceeded without the appellant having services of a legal practitioner during the course of the trial.

(3.) It is now settled law that free legal assistance at State cost is a fundamental right of the person accused of an offence which may involve jeopardy to his life or personal liberty and this fundamental right pre-supposes the requirement of a reasonable, fair and just procedure prescribed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. See M. H. Hoskot vs. State of Maharashtra, 1978 AIR(SC) 1548. It is also well established that the right to free legal services is essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure for the person accused of offence and is implicit in the guarantee under Article 21. See Hussainara khatoon v. HOME SECRETARY, STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA, 1979 AIR(SC) 1369. The Supreme Court in Suk Das case , had framed the following question :-