Lawyers should defend a person of a crime regardless of his personal opinion as to his guilt.A person has a right to have his case decided upon the law and evidence on record. The supplementary right is exercised by the advocate when he presents every view of the case presented to the mind of judges which can legitimately bear upon issue involved in the case.

The judge of the Court certainly hears and weights both sides while deciding the case.A party in person for want of leading, experience is unable to exercise his supplementary right in a proper manner.A lawyer or an advocate is not responsible for the act of a party in maintaining an unjust cause or for the error of the court.

In the criminal matter, burden of proof lies in the prosecution and the possibility of proving guilt is not enough, the proof of guilt that is required in criminal matter must certainly be beyond reasonable doubt. It is the prosecution 's duty to satisfy the Court before arriving at the verdict that crime is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The rule of reasonable doubt is an instrument which is given to a lawyer for using in favour of the party accused of crime. The Rule is not an invention but a we'll settled on the anvil of experience. The rule is an Accord with the notion as to how justice should be administered.

Further if a lawyers representations is sought to defend a person accused of a crime in that situation, the lawyer keep himself in place of the person accused of a crime. A person must be treated as innocent till the prosecution proves the guilt of a person accused of a crime beyond reasonable doubt.

Law and logic are intersecting circles and cover each other in as much as Rule 15 in section II In chapter II under Part vi of Bar council of India Rules.