THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Crl.A.No.102 of 2008 Date of Order: 16--11--2011 Between: Vanguri Chandrababu ..Appellant and 1. State rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Crl.A.No.102 of 2008 Oral Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This Appeal by the sole accused who was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur dated 25-09-2007 in S.C.No.573 of 2005. The gravaman of the charge against the accused is that on 24-02-2005 at 3 P.M. at his house situated in Siripuram village, Medikondur Mandal, Guntur District he committed murder of his wife— Vanguri Sovamma with a knife on the right side of her abdomen. It is not necessary for us to go into the details of the case of the prosecution for the simple reason after framing the charge trial was commenced and during the course of trial the accused was granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.88 of 2006. Thereafter, the appellant/accused filed Crl.M.P.No.407 of 2006 for modification of the order from Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum, which was dismissed on 06-11-2006 and posted for trial. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on 06-08-2007 and the evidence on prosecution side continued till 22-08-2007. As the accused is absent, NBW was issued against him on 09-07-2007 for production. Accordingly, he was produced on 16-07-2007 and he was remanded to judicial custody by the Sessions Judge. Thereafter, by impugned judgment he was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Admittedly, no arguments were advanced on behalf of the appellant/accused and prosecution witnesses were not cross- examined. Section 304 Cr.P.C. mandates when the accused is not represented by a pleader, and where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State. Learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the accused before the trial court, has not evinced any interest to prosecute the case nor cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. It is not recorded that he reported no cross-examination. In view of the same, accused is denied fair trial by providing legal assistance. In view of the same, the judgment under appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the lower court to appoint an advocate to defend the accused and proceed with the matter by giving an opportunity to the learned counsel so appointed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to adduce defense evidence, if any, and dispose of the same afresh within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. Since the accused is in jail from 16-07-2007, on his furnishing a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur he shall be enlarged on bail. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO,J. 16-11-2011 Note: Office to dispatch the judgment forthwith. (bo) Murthy