S. Nagamuthu, J.

1. Every person has a right to a fair trial by a competent Court is the spirit of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India "Denial of fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as it is to the to the victim and the society." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2006 (3) SCC 374 has explained the concept of fair trail and said that it is central to the administration of justice and the cardinal principal of protection of human rights. In the instant case, the principal ground raised by the appellant is that there was denial of fair trail to him before the trial Court. Let us go into the circumstances under which such a plea is raised by the accused/appellant.

2. The appellant, hardly aged 23 years of age, is alleged to have kidnapped a young girl aged 16 years on 04.03.2015, had repeated sexual intercourse with her till 06.03.2015, which resulted in her pregnancy and at last administered drugs to the victim and caused miscarriage of the foetus on 03.07.2015. On these allegations, the respondent prosecuted him for offences under Section 366 I.P.C. Section 312 I.P.C. and Section 6 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. The trial Court, took cognizance of the offence on 19.11.2015 and posted the case for further proceedings on 03.12.2015. The accused appeared before the trial Court on 03.12.2015, upon whom, copies of the documents were served as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused sought for time to engage a counsel. On 08.12.2015 when the case came up for hearing, one "Mr. S" an Advocate of 17 years of standing in the Bar, filed memo of appearance for the accused. For hearing the parties on farming of charges, the case was adjourned to 15.12.2015. On that date, the learned Public Prosecutor opened up the case as required under Section 226 Cr.P.C. and the learned counsel Mr. S also made his submissions. The trial Court, thereafter, on 22.12.2015, framed charges against the accused under Section 366 I.P.C., Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 312 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court ordered issuance of summons for the appearance of the prosecution witnesses on 25.01.2016.

4. On 25.01.2016, the accused appeared. As many as six witnesses were examined and six documents were marked by the prosecution. The records reveal that the learned counsel on record for the accused "Mr. S" did not make his appearance on that date.

The trial Court recorded that there was no cross examination of any of the witnesses by the accused. The case was adjourned to 27.01.2016 for examination of further witnesses on the side of the prosecution.

5. On 27.01.2016, PWs. 7 to 10 were examined and Exs.P7 to P11 were marked. The records do not reveal that the learned counsel for the accused made his appearance. But the learned counsel reported to us that he was present but he did not chose to cross examine any witness. Thus, the trial Court recorded that there was no cross examination of any prosecution witness. The case was adjourned to 18.02.2016.

6. On 18.02.2016, the accused made appearance and PWs. 11 to 13 were examined and Exs.P12 to P18 were marked. Some material objects were also marked in evidence. The records do not indicate as to whether the learned counsel for the accused appeared or not. But the learned counsel has reported to us that he was present in Court but he choose not to cross examine any of the witnesses on that day also. The case was then adjourned to 02.03.2016.

7. On 02.03.2016, the accused made appearance, but the investigating officer was not present despite service of summons. Since the investigating officer had not appeared, the Court issued warrant for his arrest and production. On that day, PWs. 14 and 15 were examined and Exs.P19 to P26 were marked. The records do not reveal that the learned counsel for the accused made appearance on that