Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Shri N.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records of the case. None appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

2. The revisionists Smt. Kalli (now dead) and three others have preferred this revision against the judgement and order dated 18.7.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in S.T. No. 1 of 2011 (State Vs. Naseer Uddin alias Bachcha), under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur, whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed and revisionists were summoned to face the trial under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Brief facts which give rise to the revision are that first information report was lodged on 21.8.2010 with the allegation that the marriage of the grand-daughter Shabnam Parveen alias Rani was performed with the Naseer Uddin alias Bachcha on 28.12.2008 in accordance with Muslim custom and rites and in the marriage sufficient amount of dowry i.e. motorcycle, television, refrigerator, sofa set and other household items were given but the husband and in-laws were not satisfied, and by raising the demand of Maruti Car, they used to torture her. On 21.8.2010, his grand-daughter was done to death after choking her neck by rope. After concluding the investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against husband of the deceased namely Naseer Uddin alias Bachcha and rest accused including revisionists were exonerated. During trial, application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed and revisionists were summoned to face the trial under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionists came up before this court in this revision.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that the main accused Naseer Uddin alias Bachcha who was the husband of the deceased Shabnam Parveen alias Rani has been acquitted of the charges by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hamirpur vide judgement and order dated 24.10.2017. The said judgement has become final and it has not been challenged before the Hon'ble Court, therefore, this revision may kindly be pleased to allow and set aside the impugned order dated 18.7.2012 on the basis of principle of 'stare decisis'. It is further submitted that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the said power should be exercised sparingly and cautiously when the evidence is such that will end into conviction but no such satisfaction was recorded by the trial court.

6. Per Contra, learned A.G.A. for the State concede that the main accused Naseer Uddin alias Bachcha who is the husband of the deceased has been acquitted of the charges leveled against him for the offence of dowry death but contends that acquittal of some accused is not a ground for acquitting others who did not face the trial. It is further contended that the father of the deceased and another witness did not support the prosecution case with the result that the main accused got scot free of the charges.

7. Before adverting to the claim of the parties, it is necessary to reproduce Section 319 Cr.P.C.

"319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court, although not un