Koshy, J.

This appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Before going into the merits of the matter, a primary objection was raised regarding denial of opportunity to defend the case properly while appointing a counsel at State expense as provided under section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Criminal Rules of Practice.

2. The order sheet shows that the case was posted for evidence on 3.2.2003. On that day, counsel for the appellant (A1) was not present. Immediately, the Court appointed another advocate and asked him to continue the examination. The order sheet reads as follows:

"3.2.2003

A1 produced. A2 present. The counsel for A1 is not present. Witness present. A1 stated that another advocate may be appointed by this Court to conduct his defence. As A1 is in judicial custody, Adv. B. Rajesh is appointed to conduct the defence of A1. Cws 1 to 12, 14, and 15 present. CW 13 reported dead. His death certificate is produced. The counsel appointed to conduct the defence of A1 states that the examination of the witnesses present today may be adjourned to another date. Hence Cws. 1 to 12, 14 and 15 are bound over and directed to appear on 13.2.2003. Send back A1. Adjourned to 4.2.2003."

Thereafter, on the next day, i.e., 4.2.2003, 11 witnesses were present and several documents including postmortem certificate were marked. Even though legal aid counsel appointed by the court, who had hardly four years of bar experience, appeared only on 3.2.2003, without giving a breathing time to go through the records he had to cross-examine the witnesses. Even an experienced lawyer will not be able to study the paper in a murder case over night. The order dated 4.2.2003 reads as follows:

"4.2.2003

A1 produced. A2 present. CWs.43, 18, 24, 25, 33, 35, 42, 32, 38, 40 and 41 examined as PWs.1 to 11. Cws.16, 17, 19 to 23, 26 to 31, 34, 36, 37 and 39 given up. Exts.P1 to P8 and Mos.1 to 5 marked. Send back A1. Adjourned to 5.2.2003."

Thereafter, on 5.2.2003 two other witnesses were examined. Then on 13.2.2003, Cws.1, 2, 3 and 5 were examined as Pws.14 to 17. According to the counsel for the appellant, this procedure has prejudiced the accused. Advocate Sri.B.Rajesh who was entrusted to conduct the case was a junior advocate at that time. He has not even having four years Bar experience on that date. Further, he was asked to appear only on 3.2.2003 and the next day itself he was compelled to examine 11 witnesses.

3. The Public Prosecutor submitted that eye witnesses and the person who gave F.I. Statement were examined only on 13.2.2003, but, the doctor who issued postmortem certificate and the witnesses examined to prove motive and various other witnesses were examined on the next day of his engagement as an advocate. After giving the result of medical records and other technical evidence, defence counsel should be given sufficient time to study the above before he is compelled to cross-examine the technical witnesses. Engagement of a counsel at State expense when accused is unable to engage a counsel for him under rule 21 of the Criminal Rules of Practice is not merely a procedure. It is to give effective opportunity to defend the case by the accused before his freedom is curtailed. Under rule 2 of the Legal Aid to Accused Rules, the accused is entitled to get legal aid in all criminal cases if he is disabled from engaging a lawyer and Rule 3 provides that every Criminal Court shall maintain a panel of pleaders consisting of not less than five, for the purposes of these Rules. Rule 4 says that there should be a separate panel of advocates (to be appointed by the Court in criminal cases): (1) a junior panel for conducting cases where sentence fixed for offence charged is less than ten years; and (2) a senior panel for conducting cases where maximum sentence is above ten years imprisonment or life sentence. Minimum Bar experience fixed for such a