JUDGMENT : B.P. Singh and Altamas Kabir, JJ. These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 518/1997 and Criminal Appeal No. 890/1997 dated 10th February, 2005 whereby the High Court affirmed the convictions of the appellants before us and upheld their conviction and sentence under Section 392/34 Indian Penal Code. 2. It is brought to our notice that when the appeals were heard by a Division Bench of the High Court, none appeared for the appellants. The State was represented by the Dy. Advocate General for the State. This Court has pointed out in a series of decisions that where the accused is unrepresented it is in the interest of justice to appoint an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court, or if the Court so considers proper and appropriate to refer the matter to the legal aid committee which may appoint an advocate to represent the accused. 3. This is a case in which a serious charge of murder is levelled against the accused and by a very short judgment the High Court has upheld their conviction. We notice from the judgment of the High Court that there is no discussion whatsoever of the evidence on record, perhaps because the Court did not have the assistance of a counsel representing the accused. 4. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the correctness of the impugned judgment of the High Court, we set aside the same and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. The High Court shall hear the appeals afresh after appointing an advocate to represent the appellants, in case the appellants do not make any arrangement for their representation before it. It will also be open to the High Court to provide legal aid to the appellants through legal aid committee. 5. Since the incident is of the year 1996 and several years have passed by, we request the High Court to dispose of the appeals as soon as possible. 6. It is stated that one of the accused (Rajesh-Appellant No. 2 herein) was released on bail pending appeal before the High Court but has been taken into custody after the disposal of the appeal by the High Court. 6. It is stated that one of the accused (Rajesh-Appellant No. 2 herein) was released on bail pending appeal before the High Court but has been taken into custody after the disposal of the appeal by the High Court. If so advised, the appellants may move the High Court for grant of bail, or for such other relief as they may be advised. 7. The appeals stand disposed of.