JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

Present revision petition has been filed impugning the order dated 04.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, vide which the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (now Section 358 of BNSS) for summoning the petitioners to face the trial has been allowed and petitioners have been summoned as additional accused to fact the trial in FIR No. 743 dated 16.10.2016 registered under Sections 302, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code at Police State Sadar Palwal District Palwal.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that on 16.10.2016, the complainant alongwith her husband Rajender Singh (deceased) and her son Hemant were working in their fields. Their son, Sonu came to the fields for bringing tea from the house. Kishori son of Rati Ram, Bhupinder s/o Kishori, Harish son of Kishori, residents of village Dudhola, Tehsil and Distt. Palwal were also working in their fields. At about 5.30 PM in the evening they were putting jawar karbi in the company fields. Then Kishori and her son Bhupender and Harish had asked them not do so. On this account, there was exchange of heated words between the parties. Kishori and Bhupinder started abusing. Thereafter, Bhupender inflicted a tractor handle blow on the chest of complainant's husband Rajender and inflicted kicks and fist blow on his chest. Thereafter, Kishori inflicted slap and fist blows to her/complainant. Harish inflicted lathi blow on the shoulder of her son Sonu. Nirmal son of Babu Ram and Vinod son of Rattan have hurdled abuses and also threatened the complainant. Thereafter, the deceased Rajender was shifted to the hospital by complainant's family members. On account of receiving the injuries, her husband had died. The complainant made a written complaint to the police and on her complaint an FIR(supra) was registered against the petitioners and others.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that earlier an identical application was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners as additional accused. The said application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 07.09.2017 (Annexure P-7). The aforementioned order of learned trial Court was challenged before this Court by filing CRR-4269-2017 and the said revision petition filed by respondent No. 2 has been dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty was granted to respondent No. 2 to file a fresh application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. after adducing evidence indicating complicity of the petitioners in the alleged occurrence. Learned trial Court has exercised the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on a subsequent application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. mainly on the ground that one eye witness namely Sonu has been examined. No new evidence with regard to complicity of the petitioners has come on record after the dismissal of the first application and further the petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have given injury on the shoulder of Sonu. However, there is no medical evidence to support his ocular version and further the petitioners No. 2 and 3 are alleged to have only hurled abuses. Learned trial Court has not appreciated the fact that witnesses while deposing before the trial Court have made material improvements and during investigation, veracity of the allegations made by the complainant, have been thoroughly examined and petitioners have been declared as innocent. The impugned order has been passed without satisfying the test as culled out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ' Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others ' 2014 (3) SCC 92.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that specific role has been attributed to petitioner No. 1-Harish Kumar in the FIR(supra) and he is alleged to have given injury on the shoulder of Sonu, the eye-witness cited by prosecution and while deposing as prosecution witness, he has reiterated his allegations against