The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strong and cogent evidence against a person from the evidence led before the court before exercising the power under Section 319 CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and also the learned Spl. PP for the State.

2. This criminal revision is against the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribagh in Misc. Cr. Application No.298 of 2021 whereby the learned court below had allowed the application of the informant under section 319 of Cr.PC directing to issue summons against the petitioners to face the trial with Chouparan P.S. Case No. 214 of 2012 dated 09.10.2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.4202 of 2012 registered under sections 341, 323, 504, 307, 427 and 143 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though all the petitioners were named in the FIR but the charge-sheet was not filed against them. The Court concerned while taking cognizance on the charge-sheet also took cognizance against those only against whom the IO had already filed the charge-sheet. No cognizance was taken by the court concerned against the petitioners. After commencement of trial, the five witnesses were examined and among them PW2-Chandri Devi was the informant, PW3-Nageshwar Yadav was the husband of informant, PW4-Asha Devi is the wife of the son of informant, PW5-Birendra Yadav is the son of informant. These all the four were interested witnesses and PW1-Naresh Ravidas was the chaukidar he had not witnessed any of the occurrence which are stated in the FIR and contended that the court below had committed error in summoning the petitioners while no charge-sheet was filed against them and also contended that the testimony of these witnesses were not sufficient to summon the petitioners for the offence alleged.

4. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Spl. PP on behalf of State submitted that there was ample evidence before the court concerned to summon these petitioners moreover all these petitioners were also named in the FIR and specific role has been attributed to them assaulting to the informant victim and all the four witnesses were the natural witness being related and interested; their testimony cannot be ignored taking into consideration that they were natural witness and also the injured one.

5. As per FIR case, the informant victim Chandri Devi gave the written information report with the police station concerned with these allegations that on 09.10.2012 at 3 O'clock in the agricultural field adjoining to her house, Degni Devi, Sukri Devi, Meena Devi and China Devi all entered forcibly in their agricultural field and were cutting grass. She forbade them and all these accused did marpit with her and whereby she sustained injury in her hand and head as well. She was alone at her house and her husband and her son came from the market she told them in regard to the occurrence and her husband asked to the husbands of the accused. At this Sukri Devi, Meena Devi, China Devi, Degni Devi and fifth one is Ramkishun Yadav six Birju Yadav, seven Suresh Yadav eight Permeshwar Yadav, nine Mahendra Yadav all armed with tangi, bhala, farsa intruded in her house with intent to kill them and they assaulted whereby she sustained injury on her head and hand or other parts of the body. They intruded in their house and also assaulted to them causing them injured and thereafter all the accused persons had damaged the door and the roof of her house. Their intention in the marpit was to cause murder of her husband and son as well.

6. On this written information, the Case Crime No. 214 of 2012 was registered with the police station Chouparan for the offence under section 341, 323, 504, 307, 427 and 143 of IPC.

7. The investigating officer after concluding the investigation filed charge-sheet against Ramkishun Yadav, Birju Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Permeshwar Yadav, Meena Devi and no charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners. They were exonerated by the investigating officer.

8. When the trial commenced before the trial court the five witnesses