Honble GODARA, J.–This jail appeal is directed against the impugned order of sentence dated 28.7.1995 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.7/95 whereby the appellant, after a full-fledged trial for alleged commission of murder of one Deva Ram, has been convicted u/Sec. 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, three months S.I. has been imposed. (2). We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. However, during the course of arguments, we have come to notice that the appellant went on changing Advocates and he appears to have been quite reluctant and unhelpful in conducting the Court procee- dings in regard to the trial by the trial Court. He changed many Advocates and in this process, as the order-sheet of the trial Court dated 5.6.1995 shows, the counsel for the appellant was not present before the trial Court and, in his absence, PW 6 Kisana Ram, PW 7 Amolak Ram and PW 8 Sugani, who is real sister of the appellant and being an eye-witness of the occurrence, were examined in-chief, however, the statements and the endorsements made thereunder to the effect that the accused was afforded a opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but no cross- examination was made and, accordingly, the statements of the aforesaid witnesses were completed without their cross- examination. The learned trial Judge, in his wisdom, did not think it proper to put certain Court questions to test the veracity of the wit- nesses so examined. Though, the statements so recorded and the endorsements made thereunder did give an impression that the counsel for the accused-appellant was in attendance but did not opt to cross-examine the witnesses but, in fact, as evidenced from the order sheet dated 5.6.1995, it is borne out that though the aforesaid three witnesses being in attendance were examined but, anyhow, during the course of their examinations, at no stage, the learned counsel for the accused- appellant had appeared before the Court and their examinations were completed in their absence. (3). The matter did not rest here. The trial proceeded further. (3). The matter did not rest here. The trial proceeded further. The appellant moved an application on 19.6.1995 with a request that the witnesses, excepting the aforesaid three witnesses, already examined before and cross-examined by his former Advocate Shri Guman Singh be recalled and an opportunity for their further cross-examination be given. The learned trial Judge, with every justification, did not accede to this request of the appellant. (4). However, as regards the statements of the aforesaid three witnesses, the learned trial Judge held that although the learned counsel for the appellant was not present at any time when the three witnesses (PWs 6,7&8) were examined but, it was further observed that since these three witnesses were also formal witnesses and so, in the aforesaid circumstances, since looking to the conduct of the accused-appellant, which tantamounts to delay the trial of the case, this prayer was also not acceded to resulting in its dismissal. (5). However, on perusal of the FIR and so also the statement of PW 8 Smt. Sugani, the observations of the learned trial Judge are taken to be incorrect that she is a formal witness. She has been examined as an eye-witness of the occurrence and the alleged occurrence took place adjoining her residence whereat the accused-appellant was putting in prior to the incident. She has been examined without being tested by cross-examination and the learned trial Judge also did not put a single question in respect of her examination-in-chief. Therefore, specially in case of heinous murder like one in hand in which the appellant has been awarded life imprisonment, the learned trial Judge did not act in a reasonable, fair and just manner and, overlooking the mandatory provisions of Art.21 of the Constitution of India, being most sacrosanct as well as Ss. 303 & 304 Cr.P.C., opted for hurried com- pletion of the trial and the refusal of the learned trial Judge to re-call the aforesaid three witnesses examined as PWs 6,7 and 8 for the purpose of cross-examination by the counsel for the appellant is held to be clearly violative of the aforesaid cons- titutional as well as legal provisions and this is a fatal infirmity and consequential trial resulting in conviction and sentence under appeal stands vitiated. (6). (6). The object of Art.21 of the Constitution of India is that before a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty the procedure established by law must be strictly followed and must not be departed from to the disadvantage of the person affected as is the case with the present appellant. The appellant has got a vested legal right to be defended by a pleader of his choice as provided u/S. 303, Cr.P.C. Where in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader and where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 304, Cr.P.C. and the High Court has also framed Rules, with prior approval of the State Government, in exercise of its power vested under Sub-sec. (2) of the said section as provided therein. (7). However, it appears that the appellant did engage a counsel of his choice to defend him but, the counsel so appointed and defending him was not in atten- dance on 5.6.1995 at the time of examination of the three aforesaid witnesses and, as a result, the appellant stood deprived of his valuable right of cross- examination of these witnesses and this illegality and infirmity, as observed hereinbefore, has, undoubtedly, resulted in vitiating the trial and, accordingly, in the interest of justice and fairness, we feel that the case be remanded to the trial Court with a direction that the accused-appellant be afforded a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid three witnesses (PWs 6,7 & 8) by counsel of his choice. (8). (8). In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not propose to dispose of this appeal on merit and, instead, while accepting this appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of sentence, we remit this case to the trial Court with a direction that PW 6 Kisana Ram, PW 7 Amolak Ram and PW 8 Smt. Sugani be recalled on a suitable date to be fixed with prior notice to the accused-appellant as well as his counsel and so also the learned Public Prosecutor and a fair and rea- sonable opportunity be given to the counsel for the accused-appellant to cross- examine these witnesses and, in case need be, to allow the learned Public Prosecutor to re-examine those witnesses. However, as regards other witnesses, a fair and reasonable opportunity appears to have been given and duly availed of by the accused- appellant for cross-examination of the remaining witnesses and, accord- ingly, in our view, their re-examination is not warranted. Thereafter, giving an opportunity of being heard to both the sides, the case shall be disposed of afresh. (9). We order accordingly. (10). Let a copy of this order along with record of the trial Court be sent to the trial Court for necessary action.