JUDGMENT : B.VEERAPPA, J. The appellant – accused filed the present criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.10.2015 made in S.C.No.7/2008 on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, sitting at Kanakapura, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B of IPC and sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC alongwith fine of Rs.1,000/-with default clause, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC with default clause, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under section 304B of IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-with default clause, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act with fine of Rs.15,000/-, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with fine of Rs.2,000/-with default clause and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act with fine of Rs.5,000/-with default clause. 2. It is the case of the complainant PW-1-father of the deceased Mamatha that on 01.07.2005, the marriage of the deceased and accused was performed according to the customs and rituals existing in their family. After six months of the marriage, deceased Mamatha was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused and his parents for want of additional Dowry. It is further case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage, as per negotiations, a sum of Rs.40,000/-in cash, a chain and a ring was given as dowry to the accused. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born. It is further contended that the accused with an intention to murder Mamatha, on 24.05.2007, when the deceased had been to neighbour's house to bring ragi flour, the accused who had already brought Metacid-50 from Nanjundeswara Traders situated at Harohalli, mixed the Metacid-50 in the mutton curry. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born. It is further contended that the accused with an intention to murder Mamatha, on 24.05.2007, when the deceased had been to neighbour's house to bring ragi flour, the accused who had already brought Metacid-50 from Nanjundeswara Traders situated at Harohalli, mixed the Metacid-50 in the mutton curry. He told the deceased to eat and sleep and on the next day, i.e., on 25.05.2007, at 6.00 a.m., when the child of the deceased was weeping, by hearing the same, his neighbour by name Shivaraju asked his wife to go and see and when his wife Savitharamma went and saw, she noticed that Mamatha was lying on the bed and through her mouth, saliva was oozing and at that time, the accused was not present and he was absconding, thereby said Savithramma intimated the fact to the elders of the village and also to the complainant-father of deceased Mamatha. On the basis of the said information, PW-1 lodged the complaint to the jurisdictional police. It was registered on 25.05.2007 at 2.00 p.m. under the provisions of 498A, 302, 304B of IPC and under sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The jurisdictional police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused. After committal of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 302, 304B of IPC and under sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The same was read over to the accused in the language known to him, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 22 and marked the material documents Exs-P1 to P18. After completion of evidence of prosecution witnesses, statement of the accused was recorded under the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances made out against him by the prosecution, except stating that he is having a female child who is studying in third standard and he has to look after her. 4. After completion of evidence of prosecution witnesses, statement of the accused was recorded under the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances made out against him by the prosecution, except stating that he is having a female child who is studying in third standard and he has to look after her. 4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, learned Sessions Judge formulated six points for consideration and considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge proceeded to answer all the points raised in the affirmative holding that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the intention of the accused that on 24.05.2007, deceased Mamatha after preparing Mutton curry went to the neighbour's house to bring ragi flour, accused had already brought Metacid-50 from Nanjundeswara Traders situated at Harohalli, mixed the Metacid-50 in the mutton curry, he told the deceased to eat and sleep and thereby committed the murder of deceased under section 302 IPC and the accused murdered the deceased within seven years from the date of marriage which is a dowry death under the provisions of section 304B IPC, further proved beyond reasonable doubt that prior to marriage, during negotiations accused has made a demand of cash, gold ornaments as dowry, thereby provisions under section 3 of D.P. Act was attracted, further, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that during the time of marriage with Mamatha-deceased, accused received Rs.40,000/- cash, a chain and a ring as dowry from the complainant, thereby attracted the provisions of section 4 of D.P. Act and further after marriage, demanded further a sum of Rs.40,000/- cash, which attracted the provisions of section 6 of D.P. Act. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences made out in the charge sheet framed against him. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-accused. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Sri Sudhanva D.S., learned counsel for the appellant-accused contended with vehemence that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court convicting the accused for the offences made out in the charge framed against him is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and the same cannot be sustained. 6. Sri Sudhanva D.S., learned counsel for the appellant-accused contended with vehemence that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court convicting the accused for the offences made out in the charge framed against him is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and the same cannot be sustained. He would further contend that the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 4 who are all relatives of the deceased and the other prosecution witnesses PW-5 to PW-21 have turned hostile and inspite of the same, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict the accused ignoring the material fact that the prosecution has not examined CW-38 and CW-39 Doctors who conducted post-mortem on the deceased and CW-40 FSL Officer and CW-50 Investigating Officer. He would further contend that the prosecution has not marked post-mortem report, FSL report nor material objects used for the commission of the offence, thereby, the Sessions Court has not provided a fair opportunity to the accused which is in utter violation of Article 21, 22 and 39A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Sections 303 and 304 of Cr.P.C. He would further contend that when the matter was posted for evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the trial court by order dated 29.09.2015 rejected the prayer of the Public Prosecutor to issue summons for remaining witnesses on the ground that the case is old and in the interest of speedy disposal, prosecution's case is closed, thereby, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to convict the accused erroneously without any basis. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal. 7. Per-Contra, Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent State, while justifying the impugned judgment of conviction based on the evidence of PWs-1 to 4 fairly submitted that the prosecution has not examined the Doctors who conducted the post-mortem on the deceased, FSL Officer and mainly the Investigating Officer. He contended that the post-mortem report, FSL report were not marked and no M.Os. were seized and no mahazars were marked. He would further contend that in order to give fair opportunity, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have given an opportunity to the learned Public Prosecutor to issue summons for the remaining witnesses as submitted by Public Prosecutor instead of rejecting the request on 29.09.2015 and only for speedy disposal of the matter, the prosecution side was closed. He would further contend that in order to give fair opportunity, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have given an opportunity to the learned Public Prosecutor to issue summons for the remaining witnesses as submitted by Public Prosecutor instead of rejecting the request on 29.09.2015 and only for speedy disposal of the matter, the prosecution side was closed. Therefore, he fairly submits that matter may be remanded to the Trial Court for reconsideration. As the prosecution has to examine remaining witnesses i.e., Doctors, FSL Officer, Investigating Officer and mark the documents and also provide an opportunity to the accused for further evidence, if any, sought to dispose of the appeal. Said fair submission of learned HCGP is placed on record. 8. In view of the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration in the present appeal are:- 1. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence without providing a fair opportunity as contemplated under the provisions of Article 21, 22 and 39A of Constitution of India and sections 303, 304 and 311 Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of the present case? 2. Whether the accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and remand the matter for fresh consideration in the facts of the present case? 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material evidence including the original records carefully. 10. This Court being the Appellate Court in order to consider the entire material on record, it is relevant to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documents relied on. 11. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW-1-the father of the complainant, PW-2 mother of the deceased, PW-3 relative of the deceased, PW-4 grandfather of the deceased who supported the prosecution case. Unfortunately, all the other witnesses PW-5 to PW-22 turned hostile. Though Exs-P2, P4, P14, P15, P16, P17 and P18 mahazars were drawn, all the mahazar witnesses have turned hostile. It is very interesting to note that the prosecution has not examined CW-38, CW-39 Doctors who have conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Mamatha nor marked the post-mortem report issued by the Doctor. Though Exs-P2, P4, P14, P15, P16, P17 and P18 mahazars were drawn, all the mahazar witnesses have turned hostile. It is very interesting to note that the prosecution has not examined CW-38, CW-39 Doctors who have conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Mamatha nor marked the post-mortem report issued by the Doctor. It is also not in dispute that the Sessions Court has not directed the prosecution to examine CW-40 FSL Officer nor marked the report of FSL Officer. Very interestingly, the Investigating Officer-CW-50 is also not examined by the prosecution nor marked the M.O.s seized under different mahazars. The order-sheet dated 29.09.2005 maintained by the Sessions Court reads as under:- 29.09.2015. Accused present. CDN submit prayer of PP may be rejected and inspite of opportunities given, prosecution failed to secure the presence of witnesses. PP submits in majority of the cases, Doctors and IOs are not appearing and submits as this is old matter, he will leave it to the court. In view of the above, as there is direction to dispose of the old cases on priority basis, in response to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as it is old matter, prayer of the PP for issue of further summons to remaining witnesses is rejected, as inspite of opportunities given, police failed to secure the remaining witnesses. Accordingly, interest in the speedy disposal, prosecution's side is closed. Post it for statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 1.10.2015. 12. A careful reading of the said order passed by the Sessions Court clearly depicts that the learned Public Prosecutor made an attempt to request the Court to issue further summons for remaining witnesses. Unfortunately, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to reject said request mainly on the ground that the matter is old and in the interest of speedy disposal, request was turned down. Said attitude of the learned Sessions Judge is nothing but in the nature of 'justice hurried is justice buried' which is impermissible. The mandate of Article 21 of Constitution of India reads as under:- 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Said attitude of the learned Sessions Judge is nothing but in the nature of 'justice hurried is justice buried' which is impermissible. The mandate of Article 21 of Constitution of India reads as under:- 21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. By careful reading of the above provision, makes it clear that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with law and assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice’. 13. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and another –vs- Registrar, Delhi High Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 95 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 15 held as under: 15. Shri Bhat supported the need for change of venue not only on the apprehensions and threat perception projected by the appellants but also on the ground that the request for change has been made taking into account certain suggestions made by Hon'ble Mr Justice J.S. Verma, sitting Judge of this Court, who sat in Commission to report the security failures relatable to the assassination of late Prime Minister, Shri Rajiv Gandhi. That report, in our view, is entitled to great respect and his Lordship's suggestions are not meant to be merely on paper but must reach out in action. Another former Prime Minister cannot have to be experimentally killed in order to realize the gravity of threat perception more so while undergoing criminal trial/trials. Emphasis need be laid on Article 21 of the Constitution which enshrines and guarantees the precious right of life and liberty to a person, deprivable only on following the procedure established by law in a fair trial, assured of the safety of the accused. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice. Emphasis need be laid on Article 21 of the Constitution which enshrines and guarantees the precious right of life and liberty to a person, deprivable only on following the procedure established by law in a fair trial, assured of the safety of the accused. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice. This is what Justice Krishna Iyer speaking for the Court in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani AIR 1979 SC 468 at 470) had to say: (SCC p. 170, para 5) “… Likewise, the safety of the person of an accused or complainant is an essential condition for participation in a trial and where that is put in peril by commotion, tumult or threat on account of pathological conditions prevalent in a particular venue, the request for a transfer may not be dismissed summarily. It causes disquiet and concern to a court of justice if a person seeking justice is unable to appear, present one's case, bring one's witnesses or adduce evidence. Indeed, it is the duty of the court to assure propitious conditions which conduce to comparative tranquillity at the trial. Turbulent conditions putting the accused's life in danger or creating chaos inside the court hall may jettison public justice. If this vice is peculiar to a particular place and is persistent the transfer of the case from that place may become necessary. Likewise, if there is general consternation or atmosphere of tension or raging masses of people in the entire region taking sides and polluting the climate, vitiating the necessary neutrality to hold a detached judicial trial, the situation may be said to have deteriorated to such an extent as to warrant transfer.” 14. The provisions of Sections 303 and 304 of Cr.P.C. reads as under : 303. Right of person against whom proceedings are instituted to be defended.—Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code, may of right be defended by a pleader of his choice. 304. Legal aid to accused at State expense in certain cases.—(1) Where, in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader, and where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State. Legal aid to accused at State expense in certain cases.—(1) Where, in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader, and where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State. (2) The High Court may, with the previous approval of the State Government, make rules providing for— (a) the mode of selecting pleaders for defence under sub-section (1); (b) the facilities to be allowed to such pleaders by the Courts; (c) the fees payable to such pleaders by the Government, and generally, for carrying out the purposes of sub-section (1). (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that, as from such date as may be specified in the notification, the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply in relation to any class of trials before other Courts in the State as they apply in relation to trials before Courts of Session. The provisions of 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. The provisions of Section 304 of the Cr.P.C. contemplates legal aid to accused facing charge in case triable by Sessions Judge at State expense. 15. On careful reading of the aforesaid provisions of 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, it is the right of a person charged with crime to have the services of a lawyer which is fundamental and essential to fair trial. Admittedly, in the present case, though the learned Public Prosecutor made an effort to get summons issued to remaining witnesses, the same was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. The public prosecutor ought to have taken necessary steps to challenge the said order in order to provide a fair opportunity to the accused and in the interest of justice to both sides. 16. The public prosecutor ought to have taken necessary steps to challenge the said order in order to provide a fair opportunity to the accused and in the interest of justice to both sides. 16. It is also not in dispute that the provisions of section 311 Cr.P.C., confers ample power to the Court to summon, examine, recall and re-examine the witnesses and even the person not named in the charge sheet can also be summoned as a witness. The object of provisions of section 311 Cr.P.C. is to enable the court to find out the truth and render just decision. The witnesses can be summoned at any stage of enquiry or trial. It is the duty of the court to see that the witnesses are examined to prevent failure of justice and render just decision. Even if the prosecution fails to examine any witnesses whether cited or not, whose evidence is essential in unearthing the truth of the matter, the Court enjoys unfettered power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon such witness/witnesses. In the case on hand, though the learned State Public Prosecutor made some efforts to summon the remaining witnesses viz., CW-38 and CW-39 who conducted post-mortem on the deceased and CW-40-FSL Officer and CW-50-Investigating Officer, unfortunately, learned Sessions Judge in the guise of disposing of the matter hurriedly on account of the fact that the case is a old case, did not afford proper opportunity to the prosecution. Post-mortem report and FSL report are not even marked on behalf of the prosecution which resulted in denying fair opportunity for the prosecution to put forth his case and to establish the innocence of the accused by cross-examining them. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction is erroneous. 17. While considering the provisions of Article 21 of Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pooja Pal v. Union of India reported in 2016 (3) SCC 135 , with regard to fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India in the context of goal of speedy trial and being tampered with fair trial, at paras 83 and 86 held as under:- 83. That the victim cannot be afforded to be treated as an alien or total stranger to the criminal trial was reiterated by this Court in Rattiram and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516 . That the victim cannot be afforded to be treated as an alien or total stranger to the criminal trial was reiterated by this Court in Rattiram and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516 . It was postulated that the criminal jurisprudence with the passage of time has laid emphasis on victimology, which fundamentally is the perception of a trial from the view point of criminal as well as the victim when judged in the social context. 86. A strain of piognance and disquiet over the insensitive approach of the court concerned in the textual facts in the context of fair trial in the following observations of this Court in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2015)3 SCC 220 sounds an awakening caveat: “The narration of the sad chronology shocks the judicial conscience and gravitates the mind to pose a question: Is it justified for any conscientious trial Judge to ignore the statutory command, not recognize “the felt necessities of time” and remain impervious to the cry of the collective asking for justice or give an indecent and uncalled for burial to the conception of trial, totally ostracizing the concept that a civilized and orderly society thrives on the rule of law which includes “fair trial” for the accused as well as the prosecution.” 18. It is well settled that the post-mortem report itself cannot be used as substantial evidence, unless the consent has been given by defence. Where the Medical Officer is not examined, the post-mortem report, even if it is accepted, in the absence of evidence of the Doctor, the accused cannot be convicted. Admittedly, in the present case, the Doctors are not examined, even the post-mortem report is also not marked, thereby, injustice has been done to the accused and denied the fair trial. Though the original post-mortem report and other documents are part of the record, the conduct of the learned Sessions Judge in proceeding with the matter hurriedly is nothing but ‘burying justice’ in a hasty manner which is impermissible. 19. Though the original post-mortem report and other documents are part of the record, the conduct of the learned Sessions Judge in proceeding with the matter hurriedly is nothing but ‘burying justice’ in a hasty manner which is impermissible. 19. For the reasons stated above and in the light of the principles enunciated in the dictums of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, the first point raised in the present appeal is answered in the negative holding that the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in convicting the accused for the offences under the provisions of sections 498A, 304B, 302 of IPC and sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act. The second point is answered in the affirmative holding that the accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence for providing an opportunity to him to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, in order to fulfill the constitutional mandate as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of Sections 303, 304 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 20. In view of the above, we pass the following: ORDER : i. Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant -accused is allowed. ii. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.10.2015 made in S.C.No.07/2008 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, sitting at Kanakapura is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to the learned Sessions Judge to provide an opportunity to the prosecution to examine CW-38, CW-39, CW-40 and CW-50 and mark the documents, and also provide an opportunity to the accused to cross-examine all the prosecution witnesses and lead any rebuttal eivdence, if he so chooses and dispose off the matter after providing fair trial, in accordance with law. iii. It is made clear that if learned Public Prosecutor files necessary application before the learned Sessions Judge and learned Sessions Judge shall allow the prosecutor to examine the Doctors, FSL Officer, Investigating Officer, in order to provide fair opportunity and to fulfill the Constitutional Obligations and the provisions of Cr.P.C. iv. iii. It is made clear that if learned Public Prosecutor files necessary application before the learned Sessions Judge and learned Sessions Judge shall allow the prosecutor to examine the Doctors, FSL Officer, Investigating Officer, in order to provide fair opportunity and to fulfill the Constitutional Obligations and the provisions of Cr.P.C. iv. Since the matter is of the year 2008, the trial court is directed to take up the matter on day-to-day basis without unnecessary adjournment and dispose of the matter on or before 31st December 2021 subject to co-operation of both the parties. v. We make it clear that the we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial court shall dispose of the matter strictly in accordance with law. vi. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 28.06.2021 without fail.