The standard of evidence required for summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is higher than a prima facie case, but falls short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Avanish @ Kallu-Petitioner has filed this criminal revision to challenge the order dated 20.7.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kasgganj, whereby he has been summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure in Sessions Trial No. 316 of 2022, titled State Vs. Dharmendra and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 291 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/34, 452, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Amapur, District Kasganj.

2. The above F.I.R. was registered on the basis of a written complaint given by complainant-Ramanpal Singh, wherein it is alleged that his son namely, Ram Kumar is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, who had defeated Vinod S/o Revati in elections, and for this, the said candidate was nurturing a grudge against the complainant's son. Dharmendra S/o Munna had lodged a false case under Section 307 I.P.C., whereupon on 4.12.2021, the police had taken the complainant's son in custody. On the same day, the covillagers of complainant, namely, Dharmendra, Satendra both sons of Munna, Kuldeep S/o Vinod, Pushpendra S/o Jugendra, Vinod S/o Revati, Avanish @ Kallu S/o Yuvraj residents of Gadedepur Sarset armed with fire-arm weapons entered his house and started abusing complainant and others. When Yashveer asked them not to do so, then Dharmendra, Kuldeep, Pushpendra, Vinod, Satendra and Avanish @ Kallu started firing upon Yashveer with an intention to kill him and the gun shot fired by Dharmendra hit on the chest of Yashveer. When Pushpendra @ Kare S/o Rajendra Singh, Jaspal Singh S/o Chandrapal Singh came on the spot to rescue the complainant's son, then Dharmendra and others fired at them, who saved themselves by taking shelter behind a pillar, however, gun shot fired by Kuldeep hit Pushpendra. At the time of occurrence, the complainant was not at home and in respect of the incident the villagers had already given the information to the police. On these broad allegations, the above F.I.R. was registered against six accused persons, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302, 504 I.P.C.

3. After registration of the above F.I.R., the investigation was carried out and upon completion of the same, a final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted before the concerned Magistrate and as per the said report, only five accused persons were sent to face trial, whereas accused Avanish @ Kallu was declared innocent.

4. After commencement of trial, the prosecution examined three witnesses namely, P.W.-1 Ramanpal Singh, P.W.-2 Pushpendra and P.W.-3 Jaspal and thereafter, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused.

5. The trial court after considering the evidence recorded during trial proceeded to accept the application vide order dated 20.7.2023 and summoned the petitioner as an additional accused. Hence, this criminal revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been erroneously summoned by the trial court, because the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer clearly establishes that the petitioner was not present at the spot. He further submits that the first version in respect of the occurrence was conveyed to the police telephonically at number 112, wherein, only four names i.e. Vinod, Fallu, Kuldeep and Dharmendra are mentioned and the petitioner is not named in the said information. He submits that trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction in exercising the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., therefore, interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. Sri Yogendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State has argued that the trial court has examined the material on record carefully and the evidence of eye witnesses has clearly suggested the involvement of petitioner in the alleged occurrence. According to him, the impugned order is based upon proper appreciation