NAR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA

both by the trial court as well as by the High Court. The A objection as to the defective 313 Cr.P.C. statement was not raised in the trial court or in the High Court and the omission to put the question under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and prejudice caused to the accused was raised before this Court for the first time. The appellant is in custody . B for about eight years. While the right of the accused to speedy trial is a valuable one, Court has to subserve the 1 interest of justice keeping in view the right of the victim's J . family and the society at large. The· accused is nol. / entitled for acquittal on the ground of non-compliance of c mandatory provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. No doubt, the appellant was prejudiced on account of omission to put the question as to the opinion of Ballistic Expert which was relied upon by the courts below. Trial court should have been more careful in framing the questions 0 and in ensuring that all material evidence and incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. However, omission on the part of the Court to put questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot enure to the benefit of the accused. The conviction of the appellant E under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 (IB) of the Arms Act is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court for proceeding with the matter afresh from the stage of recording statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. [Paras 32, 34 and 35] [240-B·G] F