An accused person has a fundamental right to be defended by a competent lawyer, and the State has an obligation to appoint a competent lawyer for the defense of an accused who does not have sufficient means to engage a counsel for himself. The failure to appoint a competent lawyer may result in a miscarriage of justice and violate the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) RAM Awadh has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 22-4-1991 of the learned Sessions Judge, Basti in S. T. No. 105 of 1990 by which he has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant Ram Awadh is resident of village Banjaria within Police Station Khalilabad in the district of Basti. At about 12 a. m. on 5-6-1990 the appellant assaulted his wife Smt. Budhna with a gandase. She raised alarm on which the complainant Rasiyawan who happens to be a collateral of the appellant, Chattarpal, Sriram and several others rushed to the spot. However, before these people could reach the spot, the appellant had succeeded in giving several blows to his wife who fell down dead. The appellant was apprehended on spot by the village people. Gandasa was also taken into custody. Thereafter Rasiyawan lodged a written report of the occurrence at 3. 50 p. m. on 5-6-1990 at 8 km. distant P. S. Khalilabad.

( 3 ) THE report was lodged in presence of PW 6 Paras Nath Pandey, S. I. of P. S. Khalilabad. He proceeded to the spot after recording the statement of Rasiyawan. After reaching village Banjaria, he found a crowd near the body of Smt. Budhna and the appellant was found tied to a pillar. The blood stained gandasa was also found near the body which was taken into possession and recovery memo was prepared. The Investigating Officer collected plain and blood stained earth from the spot, held inquest on the body of Smt. Budhna and after preparing other papers and sealing the body, was sent for post mortem examination. The accused was brought to the police station and was kept in lock up. He also prepared a site plain which is Ext. Ka 7. After completing investigation charge sheet Ex. Ka 11 was submitted in Court.

( 4 ) AFTER commitment of the case, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302, IPC, against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined six witnesses including two eye witnesses and filed some documentary evidence. The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

( 5 ) PW 1 Rasiyawan is the first informant and an eye witness. He stated that he is a collateral of appellant Ram Awadh and his house is ten katthas away from his own house. At about 12 am. on the date of occurrence, he rushed towards the house of the appellant after hearing the alarm raised by his wife. He saw that the appellant had floored his wife and was assaulting her with a gandasa. Chattarpal and Sriram had arrived on the scene and they caught hold of the appellant and tied him with a pillar and the gandasa wasalso kept there. He dictated a report to Sheo Das Pradesh, who arrived shortly afterwards, and then he went to the police station on a jeep. In his cross-examination, the stated that both he and the appellant were "chamar" by caste. He had seen blood on the face, leg and lungi of the appellant. He admitted that he had not given any such statement that there was blood on the lungi of the appellant to the Investigating Officer. He denied the defence suggestion that there was no blood on the body and clothes of the appellant or that he had not shown blood to the Investigating Officer.

( 6 ) PW 2 Chattarpal has stated that he rushed to the house of Ram Awadh after hearing the alarm of his wife at about 12 a. m. on 5-6-1990 where he saw that the appellant had floored his wife and was assaulting her with a gandasa. He and other persons who had arrived on the scene caught hold of the appellant along with the gandasa and tied him. Lot of blood had fallen on the spot. The Investigating Officer took the appellant and the gandasa in his custody. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was "chamar" by caste. He had seen blood on the hand, body and lungi of the appellant. His