JUDGMENT :

SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. opposite party no. 1 and Sri Amar Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. This criminal revision is directed against order dated 27.09.2022 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No. 177 of 2016 (State vs. Ashok Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 377 of 2016 under Section 304, 323 and 504 I.P.C. Police Station Roja, District Shahjahanpur.

3. By the impugned order, learned trial court in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the application of the prosecution has summoned the revisionist-accused, Sandeep and another accused Vibha Devi to face trial with co-accused.

4. Km. Anushka Krishna, opposite party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. on 31.03.2016 regarding the incident which has taken place on 29.03.2016 at about 6.30 p.m. alleging therein that the complainant with her sister Surabhi was at her house when her real uncle Ashok Kumar, his wife (Vibha Devi) and Sandeep came there and started abusing. In the meantime her father Ram Krishna came there and requested not to hurl abuses, which infuriated Ashok Kumar who brought a knife from his house and Vibha and Sandeep caught hold the complainant’s father and Ashok Kumar stabbed in the stomach of her father causing him serious injuries and profused bleeding. Surabhi also got injury on her right finger while rescuing her father. Her father became unconscious and all the accused ran away. Her father was brought to District Hospital for treatment. The doctors referred him to Lucknow and he was admitted in KGMC, Lucknow and ultimately died on 30.03.2016. The F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 304, 504 and 323 I.P.C. against Ashok Kumar, Vibha Devi and Sandeep. Charge-sheet was submitted against Ashok Kumar. During trial two witnesses Km. Anushka Krishna Complainant, PW-1 and Surabhi PW-2 were examined and theirupon an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that after investigation charge-sheet was submitted only against Ashok Kumar on 25.08.2016. The Investigating Officer failed to collect any evidence against revisionist-accused, although the investigation continued. The second Investigating Officer made further investigation and verified the statement of complainant and other witnesses recorded by the earlier Investigating Officer and came to the conclusion that revisionist-accused is not involved, even remotely to the alleged incident and he submitted report to this respect on 09.03.2017 specifically mentioning that revisionist was not at all present on the place of occurrence as is apparent from his call detail record. During trial Anushka Krishna PW-1 and Surabhi PW-2 were examined and they both just repeated the version of the F.I.R. without bringing on record any other fact, material or circumstances. They are real sisters and daughters of the deceased. No other prosecution witness or independent witness has been examined. Before the trial court there was no additional circumstance or any sufficient material or any documentary evidence or even statement of any independent witness. There existed on record only the version of the F.I.R. The complainant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 09.11.2016 when investigation against revisionist was still continuing. An objection was filed against it. The trial court called for report from Station House Officer, Police Station Roja, District Shahjahanpur about pending investigation. The Investigating Officer submitted report on 18.02.2017 stating that against revisionist investigation is continuing which included the final report dated 09.03.2017 and CDR dated 29.03.2016 apart from other material. However, trial court allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 23.06.2018 a