You say that the accused have confessed to the crime. But we all know how 'confessions' are obtained in our country--- often by third degree methods. Under torture one will confess to anything. One does not doubt the heinous nature of the offence, but the main question will be of identity. Whoever has done the crime undoubtedly deserves harsh punishment. But the question is whether the persons in custody are the real culprits. This has to be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused must be allowed a proper defence, including the right to cross examine the prosecution witnesses through their counsel. Unless a lawyer is permitted to represent the accused there will be no fair trial, because a layman does not know the art of cross examination, he does not know the rules in the Criminal Procedure Code or in the Evidence Act, he cannot determine whether the charge against him is valid in law, whether the evidence being led against him is inadmissible or irrelevant, etc That is why in serious cases a hearing to be fair means a hearing through counsel
