JUDGMENT :

Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.

1. Heard Sri A.K. Singh Solanki, learned counsel for revisionists and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel Opposite Party No.2 and learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.

2. Revision is directed against the impugned order dated 11.05.2017, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Etah, in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2016 (Crime No. 630 of 2014) State v. Sher Bahadur, whereby Trial Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. allowed the application paper No. 20(A) and summoned the accused-revisionist for facing trial in Crime No. 630 of 2014 under Sections 307, 326 and 504 IPC, Police Station Aliganj, District Etah.

3. Brief facts giving rise to present revision are that Informant-Pravendra Singh submitted a written Tehrir before the Police Station Aliganj, District Etah stating that on 22.10.2014 accused-Kamla Devi provoked other co-accused to open fire with intention to kill when Shakti Singh, Bhakti Singh and Sher Bahadur came there. Accused-Shakti Singh and Bhakti Singh opened fire on victim Shailendra Singh and Informant. Accused Sher Bahadur, Shakti Singh and Bhakti Singh chased them. Victim Shailendra Singh received serious gun shot injuries whereas informant got injured.

4. On the basis of written Tehrir, case was registered as Case Crime No. 630 of 2014, under Sections 307 and 504 IPC against four persons including the accused revisionists. Medical of injured persons were done on 22.10.2019. After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against one Sher Bahadur Singh only exonerating accused-revisionists. During trial PW-1 (Pravendra Singh), PW-1 (Shailendra) were recorded and on the application of Informant, Trial Court passed impugned order.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, present revision is filed.

6. Learned Counsel for revisionist submits that revisionists have been falsely implicated on account of enmity; all the four persons are of one family; revisionist Nos. 2 and 3 are serving outside and on this count only, they have been implicated in the FIR. Investigating Officer did not find any evidence against the revisionist, therefore, exonerating them he filed charge-sheet only against one accused i.e. Sher Singh. It is further contended by him that accused persons are innocent, Trial Court did not appreciate evidence in the right perspective and there is no evidence to connect him with the present case. He pointed out on some documents in support of his contention.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that accused is named in the FIR. On the application of Informant, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Trial Court rightly summoned the accused-revisionist for facing trial with other co-accused. During trial, PW-1 and PW-2 supported the prosecution case in the Court. Statement of PW-1 and 2 are not annexed by the revisionist but as per impugned order it clearly shows the involvement of accused-revisionist in the incident and they have active participation in the crime.

8. Section 319 of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under :

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 under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-