JUDGMENT : B. VEERAPPA, J. Criminal Appeal No.1761 of 2018 is filed by accused No.1 and Criminal Appeal No.1079 of 2019 is filed by accused No.2 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30-7-2018 made in Spl.C.C. No.334 of 2016 on the file of the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for having convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life till death with fine of Rs.25,000/-each for the offence punishable under Sections 376D of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant-P.W.1 is a resident of Tumukuru staying with her parents. She has done her Master Degree in Engineering. Since her school days, she was interested in playing tennis, she searched for tennis playing courts in and around Tumukuru in the internet. She came to know about Cubbon Park Lawn Tennis Association, Bengaluru. So, she left the house on 11-11-2015 around 3:00 p.m. in a private bus to Yeshwanthpura and from there, she took city bus to Majestic and then, came to Cubbon Park from Majestic. She got down near Vikasa Soudha bus stop around 5:30 p.m. She went to Cubbon Park Lawn Tennis Association reception counter, enquired about the Court Coach and play timings in the said Association. In the reception, a form was given to her to fill up; she filled it and gave it to the Receptionist. He asked her to come in the morning. She asked him for the stay in the Lawn Tennis Association itself, but the Receptionist and the Security Guard present there, informed her that, there is no such facility available. So, she decided to stay near the Lawn Tennis Association. She went out and stayed for an hour. Later, it became dark, she went near the Tennis Association gate, but nobody were there near the gate, so she sat below the tree. It was around 9:30 p.m., the Security Guards told her that this is not safe place and informed her that they will take her to secured place. She refused to go with them and walked few steps towards left side of the gate of Cubbon Park Lawn Tennis Association, one Security Guard followed her and convinced her that he will take her to right place. He took her to further inside the park, sexually assaulted and committed rape. She refused to go with them and walked few steps towards left side of the gate of Cubbon Park Lawn Tennis Association, one Security Guard followed her and convinced her that he will take her to right place. He took her to further inside the park, sexually assaulted and committed rape. Later, he told her to sleep there only and threatened her not to disclose the same to anybody. By that time, another Security Guard came and he also sexually assaulted and committed rape. Therefore, she lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police and in turn, the Police registered a case in Crime No.350 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 376D and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. After taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges on 21-10-2017 against accused Nos.1 and 2. When the charges were read over and explained to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as per P.W.1 to P.W.12, got marked 27 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27 and marked 15 material objects as per M.O.1 to M.O.15. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 as contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) have been recorded. Accused Nos.1 and 2 denied all the incriminating evidence adduced against them, but not chosen to lead any defence evidence. 5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment, convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the present appeals. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Sri Mohammed Pasha C., learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 and Dr. J.S. Halashetti, learned counsel appearing for accused No.2, have contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court is against the right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They further contended that after examination of the prosecution witnesses, no opportunity was provided to the counsel for the accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, thereby a right of opportunity is deprived. They further contended that after examination of the prosecution witnesses, no opportunity was provided to the counsel for the accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, thereby a right of opportunity is deprived. Therefore, they sought to allow the appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction only to provide fair trial. 8. Per contra, Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State, has not disputed the fact that no opportunity was provided to the counsel for the accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. 9. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration in these appeals is; “Whether accused Nos.1 and 2 have made out a case to remand the matter to the trial Court for providing an opportunity to them to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants-accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the entire material including the original records carefully. 11. On careful perusal of the order-sheet/depositions of all the prosecution witnesses, i.e. P.W.1 to P.W.12 clearly depicts that the counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 were absent and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses is taken as NIL. The trial Court has not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses by appointing any amicus curiae or standing counsel, but their cross-examination is taken as NIL, which is nothing but denial of fair trial. 12. The provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India commands in emphatic terms that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law’. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India thereof confers on the person charged to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. Article 39-A of the Constitution of India casts duty on the State to ensure that justice is not denied by reason of economic or other disabilities in the legal system and to provide free legal aid to every citizen with economic or other disabilities. Section 303 of the Cr.P.C. gives right to any person accused of an offence before a criminal Court to be defended by a pleader of his choice. Section 303 of the Cr.P.C. gives right to any person accused of an offence before a criminal Court to be defended by a pleader of his choice. Section 304 of the Cr.P.C. contemplates legal aid to accused facing charge in case triable by Court of Sessions at State expense. 13. On careful reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution of India and the Code of Criminal Procedure, a fair trial is the main object of the criminal procedure and it is the duty of the Court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened. Further, the right of a person charged with crime to have the services of a lawyer is fundamental and essential to fair trial. To give a legal assistance is a constitutional mandate under Article 21 read with Article 39-A of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the trial Court is not justified in convicting accused Nos.1 and 2 without providing an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, which is nothing but denial of fair trial. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence cannot be sustained on merit, but on the ground that the trial was not fair and just. 14. In view of the above, the point raised in the present appeals is answered in the affirmative holding that accused Nos.1 and 2 have made out a case to remand the matter to the trial Court for providing an opportunity to them to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses in order to fulfill the constitutional mandate under Article 21 read with Article 39-A of the Constitution of India. 15. For the reasons stated above, we pass the following: ORDER (i). Criminal Appeal No.1761 of 2018 filed by accused No.1 and Criminal Appeal No.1079 of 2019 filed by accused No.2 are hereby allowed; (ii). The impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30-7-2018 made in Spl.C.C. No.334 of 2016 by the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to provide an opportunity to accused Nos.1 and 2 to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to proceed in accordance with law; (iii). It is also made clear that if accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot engage the services of a counsel, the trial Court to provide legal assistance to accused Nos.1 and 2 by appointing an Advocate from the Legal Services Authority in order to provide fair trial; and (iv). As the crime is of the year 2015, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within a period of three months (on day-to-day basis and without any adjournments) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 16. Since the main appeals are disposed of, I.A. No.1 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No.1761 of 2018 and I.A. No.2 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No.1079 of 2019 do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2018 and I.A. No.2 of 2019 are dismissed.