Balakrishnan Nair, J. - (1.) The appellant, feeling aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence imposed on him in Sessions Case No. 262/01 on the files of the Court of Sessions, Manjeri, has preferred this Criminal Appeal. The case against the appellant was as follows: The appellant was residing with his wife Rasiya and two children in a rented building bearing Door No. 7/87 of Edakara Grama Panchayat. On the fateful day, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife and this led to the appellant pouring kerosene over Rasiya and setting fire to her at about 10 p.m. She Was taken to the nearby hospital at Nilambur and from there to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. While undergoing treatment, she breathed her last on 2.9.1997. Based on the F.I. Statement given by the deceased and the dying declaration made before the learned Magistrate, the police charge-sheeted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). The Judicial First Class Magistrate, before whom the charge-sheet was filed, committed the case for trial by the Sessions Court.
(2.) Before the trial court, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined PWs 1 to 15 and marked Exts. P1 to P16, Material objects MO 1 to MO6 were also produced. The trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to . pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default, it was ordered that he should undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.
(3.) The aggrieved appellant attacks the judgment of the court below on various grounds. One of the contentions raised before us was that the defence counsel arranged by the Sessions Court, in terms of Section 304 of the Cr.P.C. read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Legal Aid to Accused Rules, 1992 was a raw junior. The examination of the witnesses in this case started on 7.2,2005. Going by Annexure-A1 produced along with Crl.MA No. 8247/09, it is pointed out that the lawyer, who defended the appellant, was enrolled only on 20.10.2002. That means, he has less than three years' practice and so, the engagement of such a lawyer was contrary to the aforementioned provision of the Cr.P.C. and the Rules of the Legal Aid to Accused Rules, 1992, it is submitted. The defence arranged by the State for the appellant, who cannot afford to engage a lawyer by himself, was so poor that he did not get a fair trial. So, the conviction and sentence imposed on him is unsustainable in law, it is submitted. In support of the above submission, reliance was placed on Hie decision of the Apex Court in Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1991 1 SCC 286. The appellant, apart from attacking the conviction and sentence, on other grounds, highlighted the above vitiating circumstance affecting the trial and prayed for remand of the matter, so that he can get the service of an experienced lawyer for cross-examination of the witnesses.;