MANGULU BEHERA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant along with his brother was put on trial under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code on the allegation that they by about the noon on 7 -5 -1968 assaulted the deceased Ganga Behera and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the following day.

(2.) IT is not necessary to go into the merits of the case because we are satisfied upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties that there has not been a fair trial in this case.

(3.) FROM the order -sheet of 11 -3 -1969 of the learned Trial Judge it is clear that the appointment of the State defence counsel was made only when the Court began its sitting and he was required to proceed with the trial forthwith. It is difficult for us to comprehended as to how the learned trial Judge was satisfied that the defence counsel was equipped properly for defending The accused persons who were standing trial for murder. There could have been no time for the defence counsel to be acquainted with the facts of the case and to find out what defence would be taken. There was no scope for being instructed about cross -examination of the prosecution witnesses. In view of the fact that 11 witnesses have been examined by the learned Trial Judge on that day and the typed disposition of these witnesses as would appear from the Paper Book prepared in this Court covers 23 pages, the trial Court must have begun Boon after the Court sat. It would, therefore, follow that the learned Trial Judge did not give a reasonable opportunity to the defence counsel to be prepared for the defence. We find there has been some cross -examination by the counsel for the accused persons. In the circumstances he must have tried his best to discharge his duty properly and that is how some cross -examination has been possible. But our mind is not satisfied that there has been B fair trial. The position in law in such circumstances seems to have been was settled in Bashira v. State of U.P., 1968 S.C.D. 1148. When such a position arose, their Lordships of The Supreme Court said,