Judgment :- 1. Kochu Thommen J. Accused 1 and 2 were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Palghat, under S.302 read with S.34, and S.394 and 392 IPC. Each of them was sentenced to death under S 302 read with S.34 IPC. and each of them was further sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years under S.394 IPC., but no separate sentence was imposed under S.392 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused 1 and 2 murdered one M. A. Jaleel by basting him with spade bandies and robbed him of money and other articles. There is no eye-witness in this case. But the prosecution realise upon certain circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. Some of the important circumstances are: the deceased was last seen in the company of accused 1 and 2; certain incriminating articles were recovered from the body of the 1st accused when h; was arrested and the weapons alleged to have been used were recovered on information given by the 1st accused, although the recovery was made a few days after the information was given. 3. At the time of the inquest it was found that the left fist of the deceased contained some strands of hair. After the 1st accused was arrested some strands of his hair had been cut and sent to the forensic expert along with sample hair of the deceased and the hair found in the fist of the deceased. At the time of the trial, the report of the forensic expert regarding the hair was not available. The learned trial judge in stating the facts refers to this in Para.9 of the judgment in a casual way. This is what he states: "The hair was also sent for forensic examination. The report has not yet been received". PW. 24, the investigating officer, has stated that a lew strands of the hair of the 1st accused and the hair seen in the fist of the deceased had been sent for examination by the forensic expert. 4. This is what he states: "The hair was also sent for forensic examination. The report has not yet been received". PW. 24, the investigating officer, has stated that a lew strands of the hair of the 1st accused and the hair seen in the fist of the deceased had been sent for examination by the forensic expert. 4. Counsel for the accused submits that in a case such as this, dependent entirely an circumstantial evidence, the report of the forensic expert regarding the identity of the hair is an important piece of evidence, especially in view of the fact that it had been stated in the written statements filed by accused 1 and 2 that the deceased and the accused, while passing through a lonely area during the fatal night, were attacked by unknown assailants as a result of which accused 1 and 2 had to run away leaving their companion Jaleel behind. At that time they had no idea as to what had happened to him, and it was only on the following morning they realised that he bad died. The evidence of PW.13, whom the accused met at 3 O'clock on the morning of 1-12-1975, shows that the 1st accused bad told him at the first opportunity that they were attacked by unknown assailants and that they did not know what had happened to Jalesel whom they had left behind. It is therefore submitted that the trial court should have waited for the report of the forensic expert before commencing the trial. Commencement of the trial without waiting for this evidence has resulted in serious irregularity and injustice. 5. Counsel also submitted that the examination of the accused under S.313 Cr. P. C. was not satisfactory. . he questions asked were far too long and cumbersome with too many facts combined in one question for any person to understand the significance or meaning of the question. It is therefore submitted that in the interests of justice and fairplay a retrial de novo should be ordered. 6. We are of the view that the trial should have been delayed until the report of the forensic expert was available to the court. The fact that the report was awaited was known to the court and to the Public Prosecutor. 6. We are of the view that the trial should have been delayed until the report of the forensic expert was available to the court. The fact that the report was awaited was known to the court and to the Public Prosecutor. It was a piece of evidence which was not available to the prosecution and they could not have produced it at the commencement of the trial. It was not a case of failure to produce evidence through inadvertence or inefficiency of the prosecution, although we are surprised that the prosecution did not request for an adjournment of the case until the report was obtained it was, is our view, incumbent on the prosecution to have done so. We are indeed equally surprised that a matter of this importance and significance should have been dismissed by a casual observation of the learned judge to the effect that the hair had been sent for examination but the report was not received. The contention that the trial conducted in the absence of this evidence has resulted in serious irregularity and injustice has considerable force. [Abinash Chandra Bose v. Bimal Krishna Sen (AIR. 1963 SC. 316); Ukha Kolhe v. The State of Maharashtra (AIR. 1963 S. C. 1531) and Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of West Bengal ((1966) 1 S.C.R. 178).] 7. We further feel that the criticism against the examination of the accused under S.313 Cr. P. C. is justified. Too many facts appear to have been rolled into a single question. This is unsatisfactory and unfair to the accused, for such questions confuse and mislead him. Accused should have been questioned separately about each material point which was intended to be used against him It is important that each question is asked precisely and succinctly and that it is directed to a single point and not to a combination of points. 8. The Senior Government Pleader and Director of Public Prosecutions, Shri M.S. Kurup, submits that the report of the Forensic Expert is now available and fairly concedes that it would be in the interests of justice and fair play if the Director, Forensic" Science Laboratory, is examined on the contents of his report, by means of a re-trial de novo. 9. In the special circumstances of this case and in view of the submissions made by counsel on both sides, we are constrained to order a de novo trial. 9. In the special circumstances of this case and in view of the submissions made by counsel on both sides, we are constrained to order a de novo trial. 10. Accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences passed against the accused and send back the case to the trial court fora fresh trial in accordance with law as indicated above. The reference is rejected.