IMPORTANT POINT
Where accused under sections 506 read with 34 I.P.C. remained un-represented by a lawyer and the trial ultimately resulted in their con­viction with imprisonment. This was clearly a violation of the fundamental right of the accused under Article. 21 of the Constitution and thus conviction and sentence recorded against them must be set aside.

JUDGMENT

P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.I. - This appeal by special leave raises a question of considerable importance relating to the administration of criminal justice in the country. The question is whether an accused who on account of his poverty is unable to afford legal representa­tion for himself in a trial involving possibility of imprisonment imperilling his personal liberty, is entitled to free legal aid at State cost and whether it is obligatory on him to make an application for free legal assistance or the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge trying him is bound to inform him that he is entitled to free legal aid and inquire from him whether he wishes to have a lawyer provided to him at State cost: if he is not so informed and in consequence he does not apply for free legal assistance and as a result he is not represented by any lawyer in the trial and is convicted, is the conviction vitiated and liable to be set aside? This question is extremely important because we have almost 50% population which is living below the poverty line and around 70% is illiterate and large sections of people just do not know that if they are unable to afford legal representation in a criminal trial, they are entitled to free legal assistance pro­vided to them at State cost.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are not material because the question posed for our consideration is a pure question of law. But even so the broad facts may be briefly set out since they provide the back-drop against which the question of law arises for consideration.

3. The appellants and four other accused were charged in the court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley, Anini, Arunachal Pradesh for an offence under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the appel­lants and the other four accused threatened Shri H.S. Kohli, Assistant Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Anini with a view to compelling him to cancel the transfer orders of the appellants which had been passed by him. The case was tried as a warrant case and at the trial 8 witnesses, on behalf of the prosecution, were examined. The appellants were not represented by any lawyer since they were admittedly unable to afford legal repre­sentation on account of their poverty and the result was that they could not cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution. The appel­lants wished to examine 7 witnesses in defence but out of them two could not be examined since they were staying far away and more­over, in the opinion of the court, they were not material witnesses. The remaining 5 witnesses were examined by the appellants without any legal assistance. The result was that at the end of the trial the other 4 accused were acquitted but the appellants were con­victed of the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years.

4. The appellants thereupon preferred an appeal before the Gauhati High Court. There were several contentions urged in support of the appeal but it is not necessary to refer to them, since there is one contention which in our opinion goes to the root of the matter and has invalidating effect on the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants. That contention is that the appellants were not provided free legal aid for their defence and the trial was therefore vitiated. This self-same contention was also advanced before the High Court in the appeal preferred by the appellants but the High Court took the view that, though it was undoubtedly the right of the appellants to be provided free legal assistance, the appellants did not make any request to the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner praying for legal aid and since no application for legal aid was made by them, "it could not be said in the facts and circumstances of the case that failure to pro­vide legal assistance vitiated the trial". The High Court in the circumstances confirmed the convict