A. P. BHANGALE, J.

The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 11-08-2008 in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2005 by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, District Amravati whereby she was convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 250/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

2. We have heard the submissions at the bar and perused the record.

3. The accused was facing Sessions trial on the ground that she was a neighbourer of deceased Sadhana. There was an alleged incident of stone pelting on the house of the accused on the earlier day, regarding which she had a suspicion in respect of involvement of deceased Sadhana. On the following day, on 23-12-2004, the appellant abused Sadhana and poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze by lighting a matchstick, which resulted in sustaining 31 % bum injuries by Sadhana. She died on 03-012005. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution. It appears from the evidence on the record that appellant/accused Lilabai was represented by two Advocates namely Shri D.W. Deshmukh and Shri Hiwrale.

4. Despite the above fact, we find that the accused remained undefended as her Advocate on record was absent in the trial Court at the crucial stage when the medical witness i.e. Dr. Sheetal Thorat (PW-9) was required to be cross-examined. On the ground that the Advocate for the accused remained absent though called for several times and had left the Court, an order was passed on application (Exh. 48) and when the witness was called, the learned trial Judge, instead of taking steps to insist upon the presence of the Advocate for the accused, unfortunately chose to proceed further in the absence of her Advocate and cal1ed upon the illiterate accused to cross-examine the medical witness. The accused could not cross-examine the medical witness. Thus, the accused was denied of the necessary assistance of a Counsel to cross-examine an important witness whose evidence was crucial to judge the nature of crime and the alternative probabilities if brought on record, could have helped the accused to defend her case effectively in a murder trial. The accused facing serious Sessions trial is entitled to insist upon the presence of his/her Advocate who was engaged during the trial. Under Section 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused is entitled to be defended by an Advocate of his/her choice. Such an Advocate or Counsel, who has accepted criminal brief, is bound to attend the trial/ proceedings as it is his professional duty towards his client to defend his client. His absence from the Court without any just and reasonable cause may be actionable as a professional misconduct. The learned trial Judge can insist upon and ensure presence of the Advocate representing the accused so as to complete the trial according to law. The accused may be asked to engage another Advocate if his Advocate, already engaged in the trial, is remaining absent without notice to the client. If the accused is unable to engage another Advocate of his/her choice to defend him/her in the trial, the trial Court finding that the accused in a murder trial was unrepresented by an Advocate of his/her choice, was under a legal obligation under section 304 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure to inquire with the accused as to whether he/she has sufficient means to engage another Advocate to defend him/her or whether he/she wants the Court to provide an appropriate Advocate at the expense of the State because he/she was facing a Sessions trial for serious accusations involving the offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Proceeding with a trial without making any inquiry into the absence of an Advocate employed by the accused in a serious murder case tantamount to denial of effective and substantial legal aid to the accused in that re