JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral) :

The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.12.2011 as passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in case arising out of FIR No. 14 dated 01.03.2011 registered under Sections 307, 328 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Mehta, whereby an application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-complainant had been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the allegations that on 26.02.2011, at about 07:00 PM, the petitioner was going back to his village on his bike when the co-accused Bikramjit Singh, Nirvair Singh along with the proposed accused Pargat Singh were found standing on the way. They stopped the petitioner and asked him to give some tools from his motor bike as their motorcycle had broken down. While the petitioner was trying to take out tool from his vehicle, the proposed accused caught hold of him from backside, whereas accused Bikramjit Singh caught hold of his neck and accused Nirvair Singh threw a jug containing acid on the face of the petitioner. The petitioner hit the jug with his hands to save himself and some of the acid had fallen on accused Nirvair Singh and Bikramjit Singh. The rescue alarm raised by him, attracted his brother Narinder at the spot, who rushed towards him and then the assailants fled from the spot. He was taken to hospital. While alleging that the accused Nirvair Singh and Bikramjit Singh suspected that the petitioner-complainant was having illicit relationship with their sister and were offended due to that fact, he prayed for taking action against them and the proposed accused i.e. respondent No.2. Initially, a case under Section 328 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered. Subsequently, offence under Seciton 307 of IPC was also added on receipt of opinion of the doctor that the petitioner had attained permanent disability, as he had totally lost his vision of both eyes.

3. As per the allegations, during the course of investigation, respondent No.2 was exonerated. His name was kept in column No.2 of the challan report and challan was presented against the co-accused Nirvair Singh and Bikramjit Singh, after completion of usual formalities of investigation qua them. The co-accused were charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307 and 328 read with Section 34 of IPC. During trial, the petitioner appeared into the witness box as PW-1 and recorded his sworn deposition. Thereafter, an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the proposed accused i.e. respondent No.2 as additional accused. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court and feeling aggrieved from the said order, this petition has been filed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court did not appreciate the fact that respondent No.2, who is sought to be summoned as additional accused was not only named specifically in the FIR but even in his sworn deposition, the petitioner had specifically named him along with the specific role played by him. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have exercised the powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and should have summoned respondent No.2 as additional accused and it committed a grave error in not doing so. It is argued that in the unfortunate incident having taken place with the petitioner, he had lost vision of both of his eyes. His statement inspired full confidence and there was no reason for the trial Court to disbelieve the same. There was overwhelming evidence in the form of his testimony to prove the complicity of respondent No.2 in the commission of offences under Sections 328 and 307 of IPC. It is therefore, argued that the impugned order is not sustainable, is liable to be set aside, and t