JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been presented through jail where in Shri Sajjan Singh was appointed as an amicus curiae. The learned Additional Sessions Judge his convicted the accused appellant under section 307 IPC and has sentenced him to three year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of line he has been directed to further undergo six month's rigorous imprisonment vile his judgment, dated April 27, 1985. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on March 17, 1984 a report was lodged by one Gordhan s/o Nihalchand resident of Malviya Nagar Jaipur at police station Kotwali wherein it was alleged by him that he owns s Tea-stall in Natniyon -ka-Rasta, Jaipur and close to it is his father Nihalchand's shop where in snacks are sold. On the previous day at 2.00 in the noon Shyama, Kailash and Gauri Shankar accompanied with two more persons came to his shop, they took tea and snacks worth Rs. 4/-. They were leaving the hotel without paying the money so his brother asked for the payment which was paid angrily. Shyam thereatend his brother Vinod with knife and challenged that he will have to pay the price. Hemant, Devkishan, Vinod, Uttam and Gopal were also present there. His brother Dev kishan arranges, Kirtan on the night of Holi every year. In the night at about 1.45 Shayam, Kailash, Gauri Shanker with two other persons who had come to the hotel in the day also came in the Kirtan and called his brother Devkishan in a side street. When Devkishan left the place his cousin Heeralal and Jagdish alias Laxminarain also followed them. He was busy storing water but hearing noise went in the street and saw those five persons running away after stabbing Devkishan, Heeralal and Jagdish. They were saying that this is the result of demanding the money from them. He saw that his both the brothers and Jagdish were profusely bleeding. People attending Kirtan took them to hospital. On the receipt of this report a case under sections 147, 149, 323, 324 & 307 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. All the three injured were medically examined immediately and their operations had to be performed. They had sustained one stab wound each. People attending Kirtan took them to hospital. On the receipt of this report a case under sections 147, 149, 323, 324 & 307 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. All the three injured were medically examined immediately and their operations had to be performed. They had sustained one stab wound each. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet was submitted in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City against Radhey Shyam, Ramesh and Gauri Shankar who were committed to Sessions for trial. The court framed charges against Radhey Shyam alias Shyam i for offence under sections 148 & 307 IPC and against Ramesh Sethi and Gauri Shankar for offence under sections (48 & 307 read with section 149 IPC. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 14 witnesses. The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC denied the whole story and did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above and acquitted the accused Ramesh and Gauri Shankar. Aggrieved by which Radhey Shyam sent this appeal through jail. 3. It is contended by Shri Sajjan Singh, amicus curiae, that nexus of the prosecution story has not been correctly brought out and the entire story appears to be a fiction. He submits that if the motive was demanding the money in the morning then injury should have been caused either to Vinod or to Gordhan but not to Devkishan as Devkishan had no role in demanding Rs. 4/- in the morning. He further submits that it also could not be expected that Dev Kishan would be called on one side at 1.45 in the night and two more persons would follow him without suspecting as to what was going to happen. It is further submitted that it appears that true story has been suppressed and the entire case is against human probabilities It is submitted that the statement of Laxmi Narain who is first cousin of the injured Dev Kishan does not help the prosecution and further that the case of the accused has been handicaped because he did not have a competent lawyer to defend himself. Lastly it is submitted that even if this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the case then the accused is in jail since May, 1984 and thus he has suffered about 21/2 year's imprisonment and the sentence already undergone shall be considered sufficient in the circumstances of this case. 4. Mr. Rizwan Alvi appearing on behalf of the State supports the judgment of the trial court and submits that there is no warrant for inter-ference in the instant case as the trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence. He submits that the accused has not chosen to take up any defence and obviously he could not because it was he alone who had inflicted the injuries to as many as 3 persons. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and have carefully perused the entire record. 6. It is neither contended nor can be disputed that there are as many as 3 injured persons in this case who have suffered knife injuries. The question is as to who is responsible for causing the injuries. The trial court has very elaborately discussed the evidence in this case and I do not want to make this judgment bulky by repeating the entire statements of the prosecution witnesses but suffice it to say that there are as many as 3 injured witnesses in the case though one of them has turned hostile, namely, Laxmi Narain PW 11. So far as Dev Kishan and Heera Lal are concerned they fully support the prosecution case Dev Kishan PW 9 in his statement has categorically stated that knife injury was inflicted by accused Radhey Shyam present in the court and similar is the statement of PW 10 Heera Lal. It is note worthy to mention here that neither Dev Kishan nor Heera Lal has been cross examined by the learned counsel who was appointed by the court to defend the accused. 7. Defending this case on behalf of accused has a chequered history. The accused firstly engaged Shri Sooraj Khatri as his defence counsel who after sometime stopped appearing for the accused on the ground that the accused has given him instructions not to appear, then the court appointed same Shri Khatri as amicus curiae and after some time he again expressed his helplessness and one Ram Kumar Singh was appointed as amicus curiae through Legal Aid Committee. Shri Ram Kumar Singh when appeared on behalf of the accused he found that since the witnesses have not been cross-examined, moved an application for recalling the witnesses and the learned Additional Sessions Judge in all fairness provided opportunity to the accused for proper defence and allowed the application. These three witness were called. The witnesses did turn up but Shri Ram Kumar Singh did not cross-examine Dev Kishan and Heeia Lal and remained contended by cross-examining the Doctor. In my opinion the accused has not got proper legal guidance and assistance which could be made available to him. A perusal of the record shows that at no stage of the case, any of the lawyer appointed by accused or the court ever took serious interest in the case. Neither Shri Khatri nor Shri Ram Kumar Singh cross-examined the important witnesses and tried to elicit the truth about the nexus of the story. There was lot of scope available in the case for which the witnesses could have been cross-examined. I fail to understand when Shri Khatri expressed his inability to defend the accused on the ground that the accused had instructed him not to appear what persuaded the court to appoint him as an amicus curiae for the same accused. Once a lawyer is instructed not to appear by the accused it is only in two circumstances. Firstly either the accused had lost faith in him or that he has not been paid the remuneration he demands. In the first eventuality it would he denial of justice to appoint the same person as amicus curiae in whom the accused does not confide and in the second case it has to be remembered that for want of fee lawyer cannot refuse to defend the accused. It is against the professional etiquette and standards laid down under section 49 of the Advocates Act for what ever reason it may be appointing Shri Khatri as amicus curiae was basically wrong. It must be remembered by the courts that one who has pleaded either no instructions or has ins ructions otherwise not to defend ought not to he appointed as amicus curiae. Amicus curiae is a word which connotes a friend and a person who assists the court in giving justice, but if no effort is made it belies the hopes expected of him. Amicus curiae is a word which connotes a friend and a person who assists the court in giving justice, but if no effort is made it belies the hopes expected of him. While appointing the public defenders or counsel for the accused known as amicus curiae the courts must ensure that competent persons are given to handle the cases of the poor persons who are unable to engage lawyers. It is the fundamental duty of the State now recognised by Section 304, Cr. PC as well as Article 39A of the Constitution of India to provide legal assistance and this legal assistance should not be only a ritual while making the panel of amicus curiaes or making the appointment of public defenders. It must be ensured that the persons so appointed are willing, diligent and intelligent. Providing legal assistance has not to be considered as a charitable cause but has to be taken as public duty which must be discharged with all humbleness, sincerity and integrity at one 's command. The right of a citizen muchless one who can not defend himself is the State's responsibility and this right of the accused has been recognised in all civilised and democratic societies. 8. In the instant case I can only bemoan for the manner in which accused are defended. For this reason I would have remanded the case for retrial, but. I find that it would serve no useful purpose because the accused has served out more than 3/4 of the sentence awarded to him and having perused the entire papers, i.e , from the charge-sheet to the record of the trial I feel that there are little chances of the accused seeking complete acquittal in the case. Hence in my considered opinion ends of justice would meet in this case while maintaining the conviction of the accused on the strength of the statements of the injured persons alone the sentence passed against the accused should be reduced. 9. Consequently I partly allow this appeal. maintain the conviction but reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- is reduced to Rs. 100/- and one month's time is granted to deposit the same The accused shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******