JUDGMENT : Mohammad Nawaz, J. The State has come up in appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 23.10.2020 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Belagavi, in S.C.No.113/2020 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302, 376(2)(i)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’). 2. We have heard both sides and perused the material on record. 3. The main ground on which the appeal is preferred is that, there was no proper and sufficient opportunity given to the prosecution to examine all its witnesses and that the trial has been concluded in a hurried manner. 4. It is the case of prosecution that the accused has committed penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl on 09.12.2019, at about 4.30 p.m. and then strangulated her to death, thereby committed the charged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. 5. As many as 35 witnesses are cited in the charge sheet. The trial Court framed charges on 07.10.2020 and issued summons to CW-1, CW-8, CW-9 and CW-10. Case was posted for recording their evidence on 20.10.2020. On the said day, they appeared before the Court and examined as PW-1 to PW-4. Exs.P-1 to P-25, 1(a), 2(a), 7(a), 13(a), 14(a), 17(a), 20(a) and 23(a) were marked. The medical examination report of the victim, FSL report, examination report of the accused, postmortem report were marked as Exs.P-26 to P-29 with the consent of the learned counsel for accused. Hence, CW-17 to CW-20 were given up. The trial Court closed the evidence and dispensed with the examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments, posted the case for pronouncement of judgment on 23.10.2020, on which day, the judgment of acquittal was pronounced. 6. The trial Court has observed that the material witnesses namely PW-1 to PW-4 have turned hostile and therefore, no useful purpose will be served by examining other witnesses. The acquittal was based on the said witnesses turning hostile. 7. We find that the manner in which the trial has been conducted and the impugned judgment of acquittal is passed is not in accordance with law. The acquittal was based on the said witnesses turning hostile. 7. We find that the manner in which the trial has been conducted and the impugned judgment of acquittal is passed is not in accordance with law. It is no doubt true that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. However, the trial Court ought to have given proper opportunity to the prosecution to examine the witnesses, which it intend to examine. We find that no such opportunity was given. The trial Court was not justified in closing the evidence holding that no purpose will be served by examining other witnesses even without issuing summons to the said witnesses. The trial Court was also not proper in coming to the conclusion that since PW-1 to PW-4 have turned hostile, accused is entitled for an acquittal. The impugned judgment is therefore, not sustainable in law. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that PW-1 and PW-2 are none other than the parents of the victim and PW-3 and PW-4 are independent witnesses and they being the material witnesses, having turned hostile, no purpose will be served if other witnesses are examined. He contended that even accepting the entire material on record, there is no clinching evidence which would bring home the guilt of the accused. He has therefore contended that examination of other witnesses will be an empty formality and not serve any purpose. 9. The learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anwar Ali and another Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166 to contend that the appellate Court should be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses. However, this deference is contingent on whether the trial process was conducted fairly and in accordance with legal principles. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr. vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2004) 4 SCC 158 that, ‘a criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues in the case and its purpose is to arrive at a judgment on an issue as a fact or relevant facts which may lead to discovery of the fact issue and obtain proof of such facts at which the prosecution and the accused have arrived by their pleadings. The controlling question being the guilt or innocence of the accused. The trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over the technicalities and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent and punish the guilty. The proof of charge which has to be beyond reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality of the evidence, an oral and circumstantial and not by an isolated scrutiny. Further, failure to accord fair hearing either to the accused or the prosecution violates even minimum standards of due process of law. It is inherent in the concept of due process of law, that condemnation should be rendered only after the trial in which the hearing is a real one, not sham or mere farce and pretence. Since the fair hearing requires an opportunity to preserve the process, it may be vitiated and violated by an overhasty stage-managed, tailored and partisan trial’. 11. In the above judgment, the Supreme Court underscored that criminal trial should seek the truth and must ensure a fair hearing for both the accused and the prosecution. The trial must not be a “sham or mere farce” and any trial that is hastily conducted without fair opportunity to the prosecution or the accused, is inherently flawed. 12. In Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 , it is held that no doubt the liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by the Courts, nonetheless the Courts while dispensing justice should keep in mind not only the liberty of the accused but also the interest of the victim and their near and dear and above all the collective interest of the community and the safety of the nation so that the public may not lose faith in the system of judicial administration. 13. In the case on hand, the offences with which the respondent stands charged are of a very serious nature. We find that the trial has not been conducted in the manner known to law. We are of the considered view that the trial Court has proceeded to conclude the trial without giving fair opportunity to the prosecution to examine the witnesses, which it intends to examine. The judgment of acquittal has therefore, resulted in miscarriage of justice. 14. The learned Addl. We are of the considered view that the trial Court has proceeded to conclude the trial without giving fair opportunity to the prosecution to examine the witnesses, which it intends to examine. The judgment of acquittal has therefore, resulted in miscarriage of justice. 14. The learned Addl. SPP would contend that as per postmortem report, death is homicidal and therefore, the prosecution should be given an opportunity to examine the material witnesses. He contended that this is a fit case for directing a de novo trial. 15. A de novo trial or retrial of the accused should be ordered by the appellate Court in exceptional and rare cases and only when in the opinion of the appellate Court such course becomes indispensable to avert failure of justice. Further, power cannot be used to allow the prosecution to improve upon its case and fill up the lacunas. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Machander Vs. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 792 , has held that while it is incumbent on the Court to see that no guilty person escapes, Court has also to see that justice is not delayed and accused persons indefinitely harassed. The scales must be held even between the prosecution and accused. 17. In the instant case, CW-1, CW-8, CW-9 and CW-10 are already examined as PW-1 to PW-4 and they are cross-examined by the prosecution after they were treated hostile. Question of examining the said witnesses once again does not arise. However, it is just and necessary in the ends of justice, to provide an opportunity to the prosecution to examine the remaining witnesses, which it intends to examine. Hence, the following : ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment dated 23.10.2020 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Belagavi, in S.C.No.113/2020 acquitting the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, is hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted to the trial Court with a direction to proceed further and record the evidence of remaining charge sheet witnesses which the prosecution intends to examine. (iv) Accused is directed to appear before the trial Court on or before 29.07.2024 and on his appearance, the trial Court shall release him on bail on such conditions, which it deems fit. (v) The incident is of the year 2019. (iv) Accused is directed to appear before the trial Court on or before 29.07.2024 and on his appearance, the trial Court shall release him on bail on such conditions, which it deems fit. (v) The incident is of the year 2019. Hence, the trial Court shall conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. (vi) Both the parties shall cooperate for the early disposal of the case. (vii) Registry is directed to send back the records.