Failure to grant sufficient time for legal representation constitutes a violation of the Criminal Rules of Practice, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

M. Chockalingam, J.

Challenge is made to the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC I,Madras made in S.C.NO.222 of 2005 whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded imprisonment for life along with fine with the default sentence apart from awarding compensation.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:

a) The accused/appellant is the husband of the deceased Amudha. PW.12 is the elder brother of the deceased. Amudha was employed as an Attender in Kendriya Vidyala. The accused was employed in Hindustan Tiles,Nesapakkam. PW12 was residing in the house adjacent to that of the accused. The deceased entertained suspicion that her husband, accused/apellant had illicit intimacy with one Sasikala and pursuant to which, she often quarrelled with him. This was known to the neighbours also.

b) On the date of occurrence, i.e. on 15. 2005, at about 12.30 p.m., the accused and deceased were walking on the Natesan Road and near the Police Training College, they were found quarelling with each other. She was questioned about his conduct. At that time, the accused suddenly took the sizzle and stabbed her. This was witnessed by Pws.1,5 and 6. She raised a distress cry. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. She was taken to the Government Hospital, K.K.Nagar,Chennai where she was declared dead by PW2 doctor. The Accident Register in that regard is marked as Ex.P.2. On intimation from the hospital, PW15, Sub Inspector of Police,Ashok Police Station (Law and Order) proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW1 which is marked as EX.P.1 and on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.618/2005 under Section 302 IPC. Express FIR Ex.P.17 was despatched to the Court.

c) The investigation was taken by P.W.16 Inspector of Police, On receipt of the copy of First Information report, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and examined the witnesses. He prepared Observation Mahazar and also drew Rough Sketch Ex.P.20. He conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of panchayators and prepared inquest report Ex.P.19 Then, the dead body was sent for the purpose of post-mortem to Royapettah Government Hospital.

d) P.W.3, Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Royapettah, on receipt of the requisition which is marked Ex.P.4, has conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.5.the post-mortem certificate wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage shock and due to the injuries sustained between 20 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.

e) Pending investigation, P.W.16 arrested the accused and the accused has come forward to give a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses. The admissible portion of confessional statement of the accused was marked as Ex.P.10 . Pursuant to the confessional statement, the accused produced M.O.5 black pant and M.O.6 white shirt which were recovered under a cover of Mahazar Ex.P.11.Then the accused was sent for judicial remand. All the witnessses were examined. All the material objects recovered were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in Ex.P.6, the chemical examiners report and Ex.P.7 the Serologists report. On completion of the investigation, the investigator filed the final report.

3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and also relied on 21 exhibits and 14 M.Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused flatly denied the same as false. No defence side witness was examined . The trial court, afte