Fair opportunity to lead defence evidence required; conviction set aside and matter remanded after denial of defence chance.

Refusal to grant the accused a fair opportunity to adduce defence evidence vitiated the trial. After the accused indicated his intention to lead defence evidence, the matter was fixed for that purpose, but the trial court wrongly treated the case as having already been adjourned on that issue and closed the defence evidence when further time was sought through counsel on grounds of illness. The record showed that no prior adjournment for defence evidence had in fact been granted, and the accused was prejudiced by the denial of an effective chance to defend himself. The conviction and sentence were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh opportunity and disposal according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused was denied a fair opportunity to produce defence evidence, warranting interference with the conviction and sentence and remand of the matter.

Analysis: After the accused expressed his desire to lead defence evidence, the case was fixed for that purpose. When he later sought appearance through counsel and an adjournment on the ground of illness, the trial court accepted appearance through counsel but refused further time and closed the defence evidence on the mistaken premise that adjournments had already been granted for that purpose. The factual record showed that the case had not previously been adjourned for defence evidence and that the accused had been prejudiced by the refusal of an opportunity to defend himself.

Conclusion: The refusal of an opportunity to adduce defence evidence vitiated the fairness of the trial, and the conviction and sentence were set aside with a direction to remand the matter for fresh opportunity and disposal according to law.

---