https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296919 An accused cannot be convicted where effective legal representation is denied, because a real opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is part of a fair trial and the right to counsel at State expense. On the record, counsel was absent or ineffective during substantial parts of the trial, leaving important evidence untested and vitiating the conviction and sentence. The SC therefore set aside the conviction and ordered a fresh trial with State-provided counsel; the dissent agreed the conviction could not stand but would have refused retrial because of the long lapse of time. en-us Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Aug 2021 17:09:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296919 An accused cannot be convicted where effective legal representation is denied, because a real opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is part of a fair trial and the right to counsel at State expense. On the record, counsel was absent or ineffective during substantial parts of the trial, leaving important evidence untested and vitiating the conviction and sentence. The SC therefore set aside the conviction and ordered a fresh trial with State-provided counsel; the dissent agreed the conviction could not stand but would have refused retrial because of the long lapse of time. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296919