As per case facts, a 7-year-old child was sexually assaulted and murdered. Accused No.1, Vilas Annasaheb Mahale, a relative, was convicted and sentenced to death. Other accused were convicted for ... concealing evidence. The High Court received a death penalty reference and appeals from all accused. Accused No.1 argued that he was denied a fair trial due to lack of adequate legal representation at crucial stages, including framing of charges and examination of important witnesses, and that his legal aid counsel were frequently changed and not provided with necessary documents. The question arose whether the trial conducted against the accused, particularly Accused No.1, suffered from fundamental infirmities amounting to a denial of a fair trial, especially regarding effective legal representation and adequate opportunity to defend. Finally, the High Court observed a clear violation of fair trial principles and Article 21 rights. It found that Accused No.1 was largely unrepresented, legal aid counsel were inadequately supported, and cross-examinations were insufficient. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences for all accused and remanded the case for a de novo trial from the stage of framing charges, instructing the trial court to ensure proper and timely legal representation, adherence to legal aid guidelines, and expedited proceedings, while refraining from commenting on the merits of the prosecution's evidence.