JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Nizamabad in S.C. No. 330 of 2003. By this Judgment, the appellant has been convicted for offences under Section 302 of I.P.C. and also under Section 397 of I.P.C. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 of I.P.C. and fined with Rs. 1,000/-. For the offence under section 397 of I.P.C., he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and is also fined with an amount of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of total fine of Rs.1500/-, the appellant has been sentenced to further imprisonment for a period of one year on each count. These sentences have to run consecutively. 2. The charge against the appellant was that on 11.4.2002, at agricultural fields of Kamtam Village, he committed robbery by removing gold pustela tadu from the person of Smt. Remma Laxmi-the deceased, and at the time of committing robbery, he used deadly weapon, i.e., iron handle to cause grievous hurt to the deceased. On the basis of these allegations, charges were framed under Section 302 and 397of I.P.C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined nine witnesses and exhibited seven documents and the trial Court convicted the accused for both the offences. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that this is a gravecase of miscarriage of justice. While the appellant-accused had appointed an Advocate, but, he did not appear for him. The appellant remained in custody through out and even the counsel who had been appointed by him did not cross- examine the witnesses. The Court also did not appoint a counsel for him and went along with the trial. All the statements of the witnesses were recorded without any cross-examination. Even at the final hearing, nobody appeared for the appellant and the trial Court decided the matter only after hearing the Public Prosecutor. 4. We feel that in such circumstances, even if we had found material on record to uphold the conviction, we would have set aside the conviction and would have remanded the case for re-trial. The Courts are expected in criminal cases to behave in a proper way so that there are no chances of miscarriage of justice at any stage. 4. We feel that in such circumstances, even if we had found material on record to uphold the conviction, we would have set aside the conviction and would have remanded the case for re-trial. The Courts are expected in criminal cases to behave in a proper way so that there are no chances of miscarriage of justice at any stage. If a person is in custody, he is having a disability to defend himself and even if he had appointed an Advocate, who did not appear, it was the duty of the learned sessions Judge to provide legal assistance to the accused. Access to legal service is a fundamental right in this country and therefore, on any count whatsoever, the legal assistance cannot be denied to a person languishing in a jail for a serious charge under Section 302. But, in the present case, we have found that even without cross-examining any witness or arguing the matter, there was no case against the accused for which he could be convicted. Therefore, it becomes a worst case of miscarriage of justice. Even the judge went to the extent of giving sentence of life and seven years for the offences under Section 302 and 397 of I.P.C. consecutively. One fails to understand which sentence to run first, whether a person should undergo seven years first and then life imprisonment. Therefore, it appears that there is something in between the lines in this case which cannot be read at this stage by us on the basis of the record before us. 5. Now coming to the evidence, P.w.2, who is the only witness who has stated something, which can be understood to have been said with respect to the incident as related to the accused. No witness has testified against the accused in any way whatsoever. P.W.2 stated that he knew the accused. He was belonging to the same village. His agricultural land was situated by the side of the mango garden which belonged to the deceased. About three years back at about 9.00 a.m., he was going to his agricultural lands and on the way, he heard the cries of the deceased from her mango garden for help. He suspected that there would be a quarrel between the deceased and her husband. With an intention to pacify them, he went to the room situated in the mango garden. He suspected that there would be a quarrel between the deceased and her husband. With an intention to pacify them, he went to the room situated in the mango garden. He saw the accused coming out of the room. He noticed the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood in the room. On his questioning, the accused gazed at him and ran away. He found oozing of blood from the deceased. He alerted the neighbouring land owners who in turn informed P.w.1. The police recorded his statement. 6. This man is known to the brother-in-law of the deceased. But, he did not choose to go to the brother-in-law, on the other hand, he informed the neighbours, who inturn informed about the said incident to P.w.1,Shivadarshanam, the brother-in-law of the deceased. In any case, this is not sufficient evidence for convicting a person for an offence like murder. He only stated that he saw the accused coming out of a room in which murder had taken place. This circumstance even if taken to be true, is not sufficient for convicting the accused in the absence of any corroborative material. 7. The other corroborative material, which the Public Prosecutor relies on is the alleged recovery of gold pustela tadu, M.O.1, from the accused as has been stated by P.W.5. P.w.5 stated that on 14.4.2002 police summoned him to the house of Gosam Veeranna. When he went to the house of Veeranna, he found the accused in the custody of police. On his enquiry, the accused revealed his name as Vittal. On interrogation, he confessed to the crime and also stated that he was in possession of stolen property from the person of the deceased. On his statement, police recovered gold pustela tadu, M.O.,1 from the pocket of the accused under cover of panchanama under Ex.P4. 8. The offence took place on 11.4.2002 at about 9.00 a.m. According to the prosecution, the accused was arrested on 14.4.2002 after 2.15 p.m. Almost, three days had passed when the arrest of the accused had taken place. It is unacceptable that the gold pustela tadu, M.O.1, allegedly stolen by him would be kept by him in his pocket and he would roam about with the stolen property. These are the only two circumstances in the whole case, which have been used by the trial Court against the accused. 9. It is unacceptable that the gold pustela tadu, M.O.1, allegedly stolen by him would be kept by him in his pocket and he would roam about with the stolen property. These are the only two circumstances in the whole case, which have been used by the trial Court against the accused. 9. We do not believe the recovery of M.O.1 for the reasons given by us and the testimony of P.W.2 is not sufficient, even if believed to be true, to convict the accused. 10. We allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the appellant-accused in S.C. No. 330 of 2003, dated 16.2.2005 for the offences under Sections 302 and 397 of I.P.C. The appellant- accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.