ORDER 1. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC on the charge of murdering his wife by strangulating her to death in the small hours of 29-8-1997 in his house at Kranti Nagar, Latur, where they were living. The High Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. At the time of hearing of the appeal in the High Court, the counsel for the accused did not appear. The High Court itself perused the evidence on record and the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC, heard the a learned Public Prosecutor and decided the appeal against the appellant. 2. We are of the view that the High Court should have appointed another advocate as amicus curiae before proceeding to dispose of the appeal. We say so especially for the reason that there are arguable points in the appeal such as the delay in giving the report to the police, the material discrepancy between the version in the FIR and the deposition of PW 4 and the non-disclosure by PW 3 of the alleged confession made by the accused after PW 4 came to the house. The question whether there is clinching circumstantial evidence to convict the appellant also deserves fuller consideration. Without expressing any view on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remand the matter for fresh disposal by the High Court expeditiously, after nominating an amicus to assist the Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed.