IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that the threshold for summoning additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is higher than a mere prima facie case, requiring substantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. Since both these revisions arise from the same Sessions Trial, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The challenge in these revisions are made to the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2021, passed in Sessions Trial No. 217 of 2019, State vs. Vikram Samra and others, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By the impugned order, the revisionists have been summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) for answering the accusation under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307 IPC read with Sections 149 and 506 IPC.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The case is based on an FIR No. 203 of 2019, dated 14.06.2019, Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, lodged by Santra Devi W/o PW1 Sunil Yadav.

5. According to the FIR, on 13.06.2019, at about 03:00 PM, 7–8 persons suddenly entered into the godown of the informant in a motorcycle and in a car. They had masked their faces. They attacked PW1 Sunil Yadav by sharp edged weapons, sword, etc. Out of these 7–8 persons, two had country made pistol/pistol. PW1 Sunil Yadav sustained serious injuries. Due to the alarm that was raised at the time of incident, the informant reached to save her husband, many other persons also gathered there. Thereafter, the FIR records that the assailants managed to escape. One of them, Jodha Singh, according to the FIR, was identified by the informant. In the FIR, suspicion has been raised on the revisionists Gurpreet Singh alias Mantu and Vipin Mittal that due to professional rivalry they might have caused the attack on PW1 Sunil Yadav.

6. In this matter, after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against four persons. Charge-sheet was not submitted against the revisionists. According to the charge-sheet, Jodha Singh’s implication was found false and the persons, who were suspected in the FIR, their involvement were also not found in the incident. This charge-sheet is the basis of the case.

7. In the case, on 02.03.2020, statement of PW1 Sunil Yadav, the victim was recorded. It is, thereafter, an application under Section 319 of the Code was filed by the prosecution with the averments that as per the statement of PW1 Sunil Yadav, the revisionists were also involved in the attack on him on 13.06.2019. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the revisionists have been summoned, as stated hereinabove. Aggrieved by it, the instant revision has been filed.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing the revisionist Vipin Mittal would submit that the revisionist Vipin Mittal was at his shop at the relevant time; he was not at all involved in the incident. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit as follows:

(i) The revisionist was not named in the FIR as one of the assailants.

(ii) The revisionist was not named as an assailant either by the informant or by the PW1 Sunil Yadav, the victim in their statements under Section 161 of the Code.

(iii) The victim had taken `35 Lacs for business purposes from the revisionist Vipin Mittal and in return thereof a cheque was given, which when presented, was dishonoured. Thereafter, the revisionist Vipin Mittal had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against PW1 Sunil Yadav, the victim. Thereafter, it is stated that the name of the revisionist was recorded in the FIR as suspect, who might have been involved in the attack on PW1 Sunil Yadav.

(iv) Naming the revisionist by PW1 Sunil Yadav as suspect in the FIR is based on enmity; on this ground, PW1 Sunil Yadav gives the statement.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists Devendra Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Gurpreet Singh alias Mantu would submit that they were not named in the FIR as assailants. Learned counsel would submit that the incident allegedly took place on 13.06.2019 at 03:00 PM, of which, an FIR was lodged almost after 24 hours on 14.06.201