Justice KS Mudagal stated that the trial court should have appointed a legal aid advocate to defend the accused in such an instance.
“As per the prosecution papers, at the time of filing charge sheet the appellant was hardly aged 21 years and was working as a mason. He was in judicial custody. Under such circumstances, when his advocate failed to represent him, in view of Section 304, CrPC and aforesaid other provisions, it was mandatory for the Trial Court to refer the matter to the District Legal Services Authority for providing free legal aid to the appellant. That is evident from Section 304, CrPC as the word ‘shall’ is used in the said provision,” the order stated.
Source: Barandbench
