IMPORTANT POINT
Legal aid to accused – To ensure a fair trial accused has to be appropriately represented – Basic tenets of a criminal trial would falter if a different approach is undertaken by trial court.

JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.10.2019 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 242A/2009, arising out of Chauparan P.S. Case No. 110/2006, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1880/2006, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 02 years.

3. The fardbeyan of Rohan Ganjhu was recorded on 09.07.2006 in which he has stated that on 08.07.2006 at about 7:50 P.M. his brother namely Khiru Ganjhu was sitting at the door of Chaman Ganjhu. The informant was proceeding towards his house when the accused Dhela Ganjhu, Vijay Ganjhu (appellant) Deoki Ganjhu, Binod Bhuiyan and Sitan Bhuiyan had arrived with Lathi and Danda in their hands. It has been alleged the Dhela Ganjhu pointedly referred to Khiru Ghanju and said that whenever they do some work it is opposed by him. At this all the accused persons started a concerted assault upon Khiru Ganjhu and when the informant tried to intervene he was threatened of dire consequences if he came forward. The informant fled away from the place of occurrence and after assembling the villagers had come back and had seen Khiru Ganjhu hanging from a Mahuwa tree. The accused persons in the meantime had fled away.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Chauparan P.S. Case No. 110/2006 was instituted for the offence u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. against Dhela Ganjhu, Vijay Ganjhu, Deoki Ganjhu, Binod Bhuiyan and Sitan Bhuiyan. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. against the accused Vijay Ganjhu which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case.

6. It has been submitted by Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant that the trial itself has vitiated on account of the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by the defence. It has been submitted that though the learned trial court was aware about the non-representation of the appellant through a counsel but even then it had proceeded with the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant for the charge u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.

8. We have perused the Lower Court Records. It appears that charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant showing him as an absconder. All the processes for apprehending the appellant were exhausted and thereafter vide order dated 22.05.2017 permanent warrant of arrest was issued against the appellant and the record was directed to be deposited in the record room. The order sheet further reveals that the appellant was finally arrested and was remanded to judicial custody on 08.02.2019. On 11.04.2019 charge was framed against the appellant and the counsel representing him was heard on the point of charge. His counsel had also moved an application for bail which however was rejected on 12.06.2019. On 13.09.2019 the prosecution had produced three witnesses but no defence counsel had appeared as such all the three witnesses after their examination-in-chief were discharged. On 16.09.2019 two more witnesses were examined by the prosecution and were discharged since the defence counsel did not appear to cross-examine them. P.W.6 had been examined and cross-examined and discharged as per the order dated 30.09.2019 but the evidence of P.W.6 reveals that no one