Judgment :- Pareed Pillay, J. Appellant who was charged under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of his brother and y was found guilty by the Sessions Judge, Kasaragod and has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The only contention raised in the appeal is that he could not engage a counsel of his own choice before the trial court and that he was not aware of the consequences that followed on account of not being represented by an advocate. The evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses remained unchallenged as there was no cross-examination. 3. Learned Sessions Judge has observed in his judgment that the accused was' made aware of the fact that his counsel had reported no instructions and that he would be entitled to get a lawyer assigned to defend him at the expense of the State. Accused prayed for time to engage another lawyer. Time was granted to engage his own counsel. When the case was posted for trial the accused did not engage any counsel. To the query by the court as to why he did not engage a counsel he did not give any reply and did, not want an advocate to be appointed at State cost. The Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial and on the basis of the unchallenged evidence found him guilty. 4. S.303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under the Code, may of right be defended by a pleader of his choice. The section gives due recognition to the right of any person hauled up before the Criminal Court to answer any charge or accusation to be defended by an advocate of his choice. The right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of one's choice is enshrined in Art.22(1) of the Constitution. Art.22(1) interdicts the denial of the right to any person arrested and detained to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. State cannot curtail that right in any manner. 5. S.304 Cr.P.C. creates a statutory right to an accused without sufficient means to be defended at the expenses of the State in respect of a trial before a court of Sessions. State cannot curtail that right in any manner. 5. S.304 Cr.P.C. creates a statutory right to an accused without sufficient means to be defended at the expenses of the State in respect of a trial before a court of Sessions. Thus a duty is cast upon the court to assign a pleader for the accused. S.304 provides that where, in a trial before the court of Sessions, the accused is not represented by a pleader, and where it appears to the court that the accused has no sufficient means to engage a pleader, the court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State. It is for the court to assign the pleader to defend the case for the accused. In the matter of selecting the advocate the accused has no option. It is entirely for the court to assign a pleader to defend the accused. S.304(2) empowers the High Court with the previous approval of the State Government to make rules providing for the mode of selecting pleaders for defence under S.304(1): the facilities to be allowed to such pleaders by the courts; and the fees payable to such pleaders. Neither Ss.303 and 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor Art.22(1) of the Constitution confer any right upon the accused to insist upon a particular pleader to be appointed on his behalf at State expense to' defend his case. 6. In the appeal memorandum it is stated that the accused who is an illiterate person was blissfully unaware of the consequence of not being represented by an advocate and seeks a re-trial being defended by a lawyer. As the accused did not spurn the offer of a lawyer's service at the expense of the State and as he could not engage an advocate of his choice the Sessions Judge ought to have appointed a lawyer to defend him at State cost. As no person can be deprived of his liberty except through established procedure of law the Sessions Judge ought to have invoked S.304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. This is not a case where the accused refused Mubborniy being defended by an advocate appointed by the court at State cost. As no person can be deprived of his liberty except through established procedure of law the Sessions Judge ought to have invoked S.304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. This is not a case where the accused refused Mubborniy being defended by an advocate appointed by the court at State cost. In Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (AIR 1986 S.C. 991) the Supreme Court has held that free legal assistance at State cost is a fundamental right of a person accused of an offence which may involve jeopardy to his life or personal liberty and this fundamental right is implicit in the requirement of reasonable, fair and just procedure prescribed by Art.21 of the Constitution. 8. It is true that in the trial court the accused was adamant to have his own advocate. But the Sessions judge did not invite the attention of the accused that if he was unable to engage a lawyer of his choice on account of the poverty he would be entitled to obtain free legal service at the cost of the State. As that has not been done and as the accused now craves for the service of an Advocate at State cost to defend him we hold that an opportunity should be afforded to him to be defended by an advocate at the expense of State in the Sessions Court. 9. As the conviction was entered against the accused disregarding S.304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and denying his fundamental right under Art.22(1) of the Constitution we hold that the matter requires retrial. The conviction and sentence entered against the accused are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court with a direction to appoint an advocate at State cost to defend the accused. The advocate so appointed will be given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The appeal is allowed.