JUDGMENT Prosecution case initiated on Fardbeyan of the victim P.W.11, in brief, is that on 24.12.1998 at about 10.00 PM she was sleeping in her house along with her children after taking meal. At about 11.00 PM informant’s villagers Rodhan Mandal and Jai Kishun Mandal knocked the door to open it. On refusal it was told that some necessary talk was there, identifying the voice she opened the door. Thereafter accused Rodhan Mandal caught her hand, taken to Bhainsa ghar (kitchen), flung and committed rape upon her. Second accused Jai Kishun Mandal entered the room, caught hand of her daughter. She raised alarm and started to weep. Hearing the same, witnesses including Dr. Nasim, Ram Briksha Sao and Sita Ram Sao gathered. Thereupon both the accused persons left the place of occurrence but in that course a shawl and a sandal of accused Jai Kishun Mandal left at the place of occurrence. There is some specification that accused Jai Kishun Mandal came on Kothi and came out from the house after damaging its thatched roof. 2. Trial is ended in acquittal of accused respondents by impugned judgment dated 24.5.2006, validity of which has been questioned through filing this Govt. Appeal by the State Govt. 3. Several grounds are given for acquittal of respondents which is doubted on the ground only for fair trial that no material has been discussed in the case which has appeared in favour of prosecution case, more specifically even examination-in-chief of P.W.10 one of the victims and daughter of informant and P.W.11 informant of the case has not been recorded. 4. It is for the trial court to place the case including evidence of prosecution, at the same time of the defence and then to balance if is sufficient for conviction or acquittal which has not been done in the case. 5. It is made clear that in all 13 witnesses are examined in the case, of them P.Ws. 10 and 11 are only material witnesses to state the prosecution case in its affirmity. P.W.12 is doctor who has examined the victim informant and P.W.13 is I.O. of the case. Discussed circumstance is clear that norms/procedure to be taken into consideration to decide a case has not been observed. So, the conclusion of acquittal reached by the trial is not liable to sustain. 6. P.W.12 is doctor who has examined the victim informant and P.W.13 is I.O. of the case. Discussed circumstance is clear that norms/procedure to be taken into consideration to decide a case has not been observed. So, the conclusion of acquittal reached by the trial is not liable to sustain. 6. In the discussed facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of acquittal dated 24.5.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.87 of 2000 is hereby set aside. Case is remanded to the trial court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record. It is made clear that there shall be no prejudice by this judgment/order while discussing the case on merit of the parties. Appeal allowed.