Atul Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) In this revision petition which has been filed by accused Sohan Lal it has been argued that if there is a glaring defect in the process of examination of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., then the accused should have been acquitted by the First Appellate Court and the matter should not have been remanded by the First Appellate Court. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that if there is apparent irregularity in t the process of examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then in every such case, the accused cannot be acquitted by the First Appellate Court and the better course for the First Appellate Court is to remand the matter for observance of formalities of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then pass a fresh judgment as per law.
(2.) I have perused the record of the lower Court in the light of the aforesaid arguments advanted by both the sides. I have perused the judgment dated 29.7.2005 of the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh passed in Criminal Regular Case No. 75/2005.
(3.) This was a case under Sections 279, 337 and 304A I.P.C. The trial Court had convicted the accused Sohan Lal under Sections 279, 337 and 304 I.P.C. and while convicting the accused, the trial Court has relied upon the post-mortem report and the injury report also which were there in the file which were duly exhibited also.;