ORDER :

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The challenge in this appeal is to an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and upheld by the High Court in the criminal revision under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") whereby the two appellants herein have been summoned along with the original Accused 1, who is the father-in-law of the first appellant.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15-12-1995, on the agricultural land of the first appellant and the deceased, who are brothers, an altercation took place on the issue of fixing of electric motor pump on the said land. There was already a dispute in respect of the said land between the brothers. The second appellant is a relation of the first appellant. The further case of the prosecution is that the original Accused 1, who is also the relation of the parties, gave a push to the deceased as a result whereof he fell on a stone and died. The charge-sheet was filed showing Accused 1 as the sole accused on 30-3-1996 after completion of the investigation.

5. An application under Section 319 of the Code was filed by the second respondent, who is the wife of the deceased, on 4-3-2003, after seven witnesses, PWs 1 to 7, had been examined by the Sessions Court. By order dated 3-7-2003, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by a cryptic order, allowed the said application and directed the appellants herein to be impleaded as accused in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code. As already stated above, the said order has been affirmed by the High Court in a revision petition. The basis of the application and the order that has been made summoning the appellants as accused are the statements of PWs 1, 2 and 3, who are the relations of the deceased; PW 2, being the wife of the deceased.

6. We have perused the statements of these witnesses and find that in relation to the alleged instigation by the appellants, only general statements have been made. On the basis of the said general statements qua the appellants, it is evident that the courts below committed serious illegality in proceeding to add the appellants herein as accused in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code. The manner of exercise of the power under the said provision has been explained by this Court in Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka, (2004) 7 SCC 792 . wherein it has been held that it has to be kept in view that the power under Section 319 of the Code is discretionary and has to be exercised only to achieve criminal justice and that the court should not turn against another whenever it comes across evidence connecting that other person also with the offence. The provisions of Section 319 of the Code are required to be used sparingly. The summoning of the appellants after the expiry of eight years, on the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the nature of the depositions of the witnesses which have been examined by us, is not called for. In this view, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the criminal appeal.