examining him to the defence, and as such, his evidence cannot be used against the appellant/accused. By noting down absence of the advocate of the appellant/accused, the learned trial court asked whether the appellant/accused was willing to cross-examine PW3 Kartik Naidu. By noting down that he declined to crossexamine the witness, evidence of PW3 Kartik Naidu was closed by the learned trial court. This approach of the learned trial court is not in consonance with law, and more particularly, in view of provisions of Sections 303 and 304 of the Cr.P.C. which provides that an accused is entitled for legal aid in absence of his counsel, it becomes the duty of the court to provide legal aid to the accused in such eventuality. Mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution is ignored by the learned trial court while adopting such course of action. Therefore, evidence of PW3 Kartik Naidu cannot be used to further the case of the prosecution. (See (a) Baliram Madhukar Dalvi vs. State of Maharashtra1 , (b) Hussainara Khatoon and Others (IV) vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna2 , (c) Suk Das and another vs. Union Territory of
