BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused under section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. This appeal has been entertained by the Court, after having been forwarded by the jail authorities and a counsel was provided to the appellant/ accused by the Court by an order dated 9-9-2002. ( 2 ) THE accused was charged with an offense of murder, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses, but all the witnesses who were produced by the prosecution were not cross-examined by the accused. He has appointed some counsel, who, on one pretext or the other, did not cross-examine the witnesses. Ultimately at the state of hearing he gave up vakalat, but the trial Court did not allow the accused to appoint a second advocate or provide him an advocate. The discussion on this aspect was made by the trial Court in para-9 of its judgment, which is reproduced below. "before discussing the evidence and deciding the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case it is necessary to mention certain unexpected obstacles that took place during the course of trial. On the first day of hearing, that was on 6-5-2002, after P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined in chief, the counsel for the accused sent a petition for adjou rnment but that was dismissed on merits. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined on that day in chief and for their cross- examination the matter was posted to 7-5-2002. On the day P. Ws. 1 and 2 were recalled for cross-examination and as the defence counsel did not turn up, they were not cross-examined. Hence their evidence was closed. On the same day P. Ws. 3 and 4 was also examined. When the matter was posted to 9-5-2002 forfurtherevidence and P. W. 5 was examined, the counsel for the accused sent two petitions one filed u/s. 311 I. P. C. for recalling P. Ws. 1 to 4 for cross-examination and also at the same time for adjournment u/s. 309 cr. P. C. These two petitions were dismissed on merits and P. Ws. 6 and 7 were examined for further evidence. 1 to 4 for cross-examination and also at the same time for adjournment u/s. 309 cr. P. C. These two petitions were dismissed on merits and P. Ws. 6 and 7 were examined for further evidence. The matter was posted to 10-6-2002 and on that day P. Ws. 8 to 10 were examined and the case was adjourned to 13-5-2002 on that day P. Ws. 11 to 13 were examined and the matter was posted to 13-5-2002 and from that date the matter was adjourned to 16-5-2002 and from date the matter was adjourned to 16-5-2002 and from 16-5-2002 to 3-6-2002 as the witnesses were absent and summer vacation intervened. Afterwards the remaining witnesses were examined. When the matter came up for arguments on 13-6-2002 the counsel for the accused filed a memo giving up his appearance stating that the accused failed to give instructions to defend him. Then the arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the accused were heard. Had the counsel for the accused given up his memo of appearance in the first instance itself the accused would have been provided with a state brief to defend him. The accused lost that opportunity in the light of the aforesaid circumstances and the court became helpless. However, the case of the prosecution and the evidence on record is going to be thoroughly scrutinized before coming to any conclusion. " ( 3 ) WE think the role of the advocate as well as the Judge concerned cannot be appreciated. The lawyer failed in his duty to defend the accused and the Judge also failed in his duty to see that the accused who was in custody had an opportunity to defend himself, if his lawyer failed to defend his case. The Court should not have failed in providing him the requisite legal assistance. Right of fair trial is a fundamental right and cannot be denied. We believe that the accused has not got justice and therefore for this reason alone, we set aside the judgment of the trial Court and direct in terms of section 386 (b) (i) of Cr. P. C. re-trial of the accused. The record of the case shall be transmitted back to the trial Court. The trial court is directed to fix a schedule for recording of evidence continuously till whole of the evidence of prosecution is completed. P. C. re-trial of the accused. The record of the case shall be transmitted back to the trial Court. The trial court is directed to fix a schedule for recording of evidence continuously till whole of the evidence of prosecution is completed. No adjournment on that ground shall be given to the prosecution. The accused shall be offered legal assistance by the trial Court and the legal Services Authority shall provide him an advocate, if he is not able to engage a counsel on his own. The counsel appearing for the appellate/accused in this court shall also be paid his fees in accordance with rules by the high Court Legal Services Authority. The appeal is accordingly allowed.