JUDGMENT :-

Madan B. Lokur, J.

After hearing arguments in this appeal, we had reserved judgment. While preparing the judgment, it was noticed that the appellant (Rajoo) was not represented in the High Court. The issue that arises, therefore, is whether Rajoo was entitled, as a matter of right, to legal representation in the High Court. Our answer is in the affirmative.

The facts:

On 06.12.1998, seven persons including Rajoo are alleged to have gang-raped ‘G’. The Trial Court convicted all of them for the offence and sentenced each of them to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default thereof they were required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. Appeals were filed by all the convicted persons before the High Court. By its judgment and order dated 05.09.2006, the High Court set aside the conviction in respect of five of the convicts, but upheld the conviction in respect of Rajoo and Vijay. We have been informed that Vijay has accepted the judgment of the High Court. Only Rajoo has appealed against his conviction and sentence. Before us Rajoo was represented by learned counsel who took us through the material on record and made hi