JUDGMENT : Mr. Deepak Maheshwari, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the accused-respondents No. 1 & 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has not adopted proper course during trial. Out of 11 witnesses mentioned in the calendar of witnesses, only 5 witnesses have been examined and the other witnesses have not even been called. He submits that the important witnesses like, Inder Raj, who happened to be eyewitness, Dr. Amar Singh Rathore, who medically examined the injured persons and Sanwant Singh Yadav, who investigated the occurrence have not been examined. The learned trial Court has also mentioned in the judgment that there is no need to examine the accused-persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., therefore, it is clear that they have not been examined under the mandatory provisions of law. The learned counsel also submits that the accused persons have not been provided opportunity to adduce the defence witnesses also. He submits that the learned trial Court in a very hasty manner has disposed of the case without providing adequate opportunity to examine all the relevant prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the matter is required to be remanded back. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that the adequate opportunity was provided by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel also submits that as the material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story, there was no need to call other witnesses and examine them. He also submits that as per the statements of PW-1 Bhoop Singh S/o Tara Chand, Inder Raj, was not an eye-witness rather he tried to inflict injury by knife to Ved Ram which he missed. The learned counsel for the accused-respondents No. 1 & 2 thus submits that the learned trial Court has adopted proper procedure and, therefore, there is no need to remand the matter back. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsels and also considered the relevant provisions of law. The provisions contained in Section 232 and 313 Cr.P.C. are required to be mandatorily adopted. It is also required to provide adequate opportunity to the prosecution side to prove the alleged offence against the accused persons. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsels and also considered the relevant provisions of law. The provisions contained in Section 232 and 313 Cr.P.C. are required to be mandatorily adopted. It is also required to provide adequate opportunity to the prosecution side to prove the alleged offence against the accused persons. 5. On perusal of the order-sheets of the learned trial Court, it appears that on 17th July, 2001, the charges were framed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 447 IPC. On next date of hearing, i.e., 18th August, 2001, witnesses were not called. On 1st September, 2001 and 15th September, 2001, the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 6th October, 2001, PW-1 Bhoop Singh, PW-2 Dilbag and PW-3 Heera Lal were examined. Thereafter, the learned trial Court ordered to call the witnesses No. 1, 2, 4 and 7 by way of bailable warrants. On 20th October, 2001, PW-4 Mangal Ram and PW-5 Moti Ram were examined. On the very same day, the learned trial Court heard the final arguments without examining the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while observing that all the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, therefore, there is no need to examine the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On the same day, judgment was pronounced where by, the accused-respondents No. 1 and 2 were acquitted of the charges. 6. Taking the aforesaid facts into consideration, it is apparent that the learned trial Court did not take the trouble to even call the witnesses, namely, Inder Raj, Dr. Amar Singh Rathore and Sawant Singh Yadav, who were eye-witness, Medical Jurist and Investigating Officer of the case respectively. These were important and material witnesses to be examined to reach at the proper conclusion regarding the charges but the order-sheets of the learned trial Court reveal that the above mentioned witnesses were not even called to be examined during the trial. 7. In view of the above mentioned discussions, it seems appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned trial Court in order to provide adequate opportunity to the prosecution side to examine these witnesses and then to pronounce the judgment in the light of the prosecution evidence as well as the defence evidence, if adduced by the defence side. 8. In view of the above mentioned discussions, it seems appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned trial Court in order to provide adequate opportunity to the prosecution side to examine these witnesses and then to pronounce the judgment in the light of the prosecution evidence as well as the defence evidence, if adduced by the defence side. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents No. 1 and 2 is directed to ensure the presence of the accused persons, namely, Ved Ram and Sheodan, before the learned trial Court on 4th October, 2016. 9. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the trial Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarhbas has now been abolished, therefore, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents No. 1 and 2 is directed to ensure the presence of both the accused respondents No. 1 & 2 before the Additional District Judge, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar for further proceedings in the matter. 10. A copy of this order along with the relevant record be sent to the learned trial Court of Additional District Judge, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar immediately for information and compliance.