The judgment established the principle that accused persons whose personal liberty is in jeopardy are entitled to free legal aid at State cost, and the court has a duty to ensure fair trial and provide practical solutions for the absence of public counsel.

The house of a Professor was burgled around midnight on 8-9-1984. Two buckets and two vessels (Aluminium) besides one candle stand (made of brass) were stolen from that house. During investigation it was revealed that the burglary was committed by the two respondents by entering into the building after breaking the bare of a window of the house. The respondents were tried for the offences under sections 457 and 380 read with S. 34 of the I.P.C., but the trial court found them not guilty and acquitted them. Hence this appeal by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Kerala with special leave granted by this Court.

2. Although the Professor (P.W. 1) came to know of the burglary by next morning, he did not report the matter to the police. But the police came to know of it, when the respondents were interrogated by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Percorkada, who arrested them in connection with some other crimes, during the last week of November 1984. Hence the present case was registered against them and the stolen articles were recovered by the police from the shop of P.W. 3. After completing the investigation, the case was charge-sheeted.

3. The trial Magistrate did not rely on the testimony of P.W. 1 mainly for the reason that he did not report the matter to the police. The learned Magistrate has observed that "the police station is only 2.5 kms. away from the residence of P.W. 1; he is an educated gentleman working as Professor in the Mar Ivanious College, Nalanchira, Trivandrum; naturally being an educated man he had the duty to inform the matter to the police; he did not do so; the reason for the non-information to the police is best known to him alone". Another reason advanced by the learned Magistrate fir acquitting the respondents is that "as there was no counsel to defend the accused, the evidence of witnesses cannot be believed as such since they were not cross-examined".

4. There is much force in the contention of the Public Prosecutor that mere omission to report the matter to the police should not have been used as a ground to discard the testimony of the person from whose house the articles were stolen. One may refrain from going to the police station, even if he is an aggrieved person, due to different reasons. Perhaps he may feel that the value of the stolen articles is not much to take the trouble to go to the police for reporting the theft. He may even think that chances of tracing the culprits are bleak and so no useful purpose will be served by reporting the theft to the authorities. Some persons may be very busy with their other work to find time to go to the police station, and they may forgo the loss sustained by them in the theft. These are only a few reasons due to which persons aggrieved may avoid going to the police station complaining of their grievances. It may be unrealistic to attach any stigma to the testimony of such persons merely on the ground of their failure to report to the police. In this case the nature of the articles stolen, as estimated by the trial court is only Rs. 400/-. The Professor would have considered it a small sum for the trouble to go to the police station in the midst of his busy schedule of work. The trial court was, therefore, in error in discarding his testimony on that ground.

5. It is necessary to consider the consequences of an accused not getting the services of a counsel to defend him in a criminal trial. If an accused who is enlarged on bail, engages a counsel at his own expense, the court has no duty to assist him in securing proper legal aid in his defence. But if the accused is in custody and he has not engaged a counsel, the court has to see that he is defended by a legal practitioner. Otherwise the whole trial will become a farce as far as he is concerned. Of course, if an accused refuses to have the services of a counsel, court cannot thrust it on him.

6. In this case the accused were in custody and a public counsel (appointed by the State Go