PATHANI BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant stands convicted under Section 304 Part -I, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced there under to R.I. for seven years.

(2.) IT is not necessary for me to narrate the prosecution and the defence cases as on hearing the counsel appearing for, both the parties and on a perusal of the depositions of some of the important witnesses I have decided to remand this case for retrial for reasons stated above.

(3.) MR . Kanungo, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that as the defence counsel was engaged for the Appellant by the Sessions Judge on the date on which the Judge took up the trial of the case and examined as many as 8 witnesses immediately thereafter, the defence counsel did not have any time to properly go through the papers supplied to him in Court just before the beginning of the trial, and to prepare the defence for the accused in the correct perspective. Mr. Kanungo also says that as the examination of the witnesses began immediately after the appointment of the defence counsel, he could not have taken necessary instruction from the accused persons to properly cross -examine the witnesses. As the trial of the case began in the appointment of the State defence counsel in the manner stated above. Mr. Kanungo submits that the accused persons did not have real legal assistance, in case of this nature, to defend themselves and were highly prejudiced thereby; and the engagement of the offence counsel was more for the purpose of satisfying the formality and not for giving proper legal aid to the accused persons.