Sir,

     If a cse is pending for so many years for the evidence of  Docotor. Lawyer of the accused is over confident that there is no enough evidence against the accused, if the Doctor is not examined in the court. Due to this over confidence he admitted the genuineness of post mortem report and endorse on the report " Formal Proof dispensed with". Trial court acquitted the acccused but appealate court convictes the accused on the basis of lawyers endorsement " Formal proof dispensed with".

                                                                                               There is also one case in which A,B,C,D, were playing cards and were prosecuted for gambling. Their lawyer in cross*xamination put the suggesstion to the witness " Mera yah kahana hai ki, kewal do admi C and D whan par tash khel rahe the" . Defence lawyer was trying to put out contradiction with other witness, because there was diffrences in the statements of witnesses on the number of accused at the spot. Court convited C and D on the basis of lawyers suggession and acquitted rest of the accused. 
                                                                                                 Learned members! don't you think that in our country where 60 % litigants are illiterate. If his lawyer does such a mistake. The accused should not suffer?. In the light of jurisprudence also, an admission by lawyer should not be deemed admission by accused. Am I wrong? 

Arvind, ignorance of law is no excuse....i agree there could be certain instances where the litigant suffers due to mistakes committed by the lawyers.

but practically it is considered that the lawyer acted as according to the instructions of the client.

however in certain cases the courts do interfere and ensure justice to the litigants but on certain occasions it becomes difficult for the court to cover the mistakes committed by a lawyer.

in ur case, the accused may move an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C (as it can be moved at any stage) but the accused will have to prove that he was not at fault.

You are absolutely right

Somehow I am unable to accept that in the first case the conviction was based only upon the dispensation of formal proof of Post-Mortem report. The formal proof is never very difficult. The post-mortem report mainly gives the nature of death (natural, homicial, suicidal or otherwise) and/or injuries (ante-mortem or post-mortem).

The "No-objection" to the report being taken as proved, by itself, would not be sufficient to convict. It would mainly depend upon other incriminating material also. May be, the admission of PM Report completed the chain of otherwise existing and proved incriminating evidence.

Another rule is that prosecution has to prove its case and has to stand on its own legs. The falsity of a defence plea or a sugession alone cannot be basis of conviction.

I agree with Mr. Kiran Kumar that in almost all the cases, the lawyer acts upon instruction from the client. A lawyer is not supposed to create a defence version on his own imaginations without the express or implied instructions from the client.

There is substance in the views of Mr Kiran kumar and mr Gulati .

Kiran Sir!                 

I agree with you that practically it is considered that the lawyer acted as according to the instructions of the client. But don't you think that such view of jurisprudence suited to only european contries, where litigant is very cautious to proceedings in court. Should same be applied ? in our country where PRACTICALLY next date is anounced by court or written on the left side of order sheet  poor litigant press the thumb impression on it and the order sheet is typed later. Even a lawyer remain unable to object.

I AGREE WITH  MR.KIRAN AND SUBHASH

Arvind try to take the expression PRACTICALLY in true sense....before replying to my posts and replies, pls read my words 3 times atleast.

the comparative analysis u r making between European Countries and India is already answered in expression " ignorance of law is no excuse"

every house has some culture, some self imposed regulations or u can say some self accepted behaviour....similar is the position with a country...we have accepted certain laws and we must know them....the problem with Indians is most of the citizens are not interested in knowing their own laws.

and as far as lawyers are concerned.....again i would say Practically they use their legal tools as according to the facts narrated by the clients/litigants....however there can be few exceptions.

e.g a lawyer can not feed his client to answer in a particular manner during cross-examination....however a lawyer can just guide him, but (again practically) the answers are to the given by the client only.

its in fact a wider issue and has to be dealt as according to the circumstances....