ensures that an accused gets a fair trial. It is essential that the accused is given reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the trial. He is allowed the assistance of a lawyer of his choice and if he is unable to afford one, he is given a lawyer for his defence. The right to be defended by a learned counsel is a principal part of the right to fair trial. These were considered to be the minimum safeguards to be adopted for a fair trial, otherwise it would amount to prejudice to accused. Here, in the present case, the accused i.e. the present appellant had engaged Advocate of his choice. Now, the Advocate, who is representing him before this Court, if he finds that certain questions which ought to have been asked were not asked, that does not mean that there was not a fair trial. Every Advocate conducts the matter as per his capacity and knowledge. The manner of asking questions and the procedure adopted differs from Advocate to Advocate. Now, as regards the testimony of PW 8 Dr. Nawal, the autopsy surgeon, is concerned, if it is not asked to him, as to whether the throttling was earlier than to the hanging part and how with only one thumb impression or single bruise on right side and three finger marks on the left side of the neck will cause throttling is not asked, then, it cannot be said that the learned Advocate who was representing the accused was lacking in any knowledge or it is intentional failure on his part to ask the said question. Even if we consider it to be an inadvertent
