1. This is third visit of the applicant to this Court with reference to the same prayer under section 319 of CrPC relating to impleading the respondent No. 2 as an accused in the Sessions Trial No. 83/2011, pending before Second Additional Sessions Judge, Joura, District Morena (M.P.), which has been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 15.3.2016.

2. The facts relevant for the adjudication of the instant case are that, the respondent No.1, police station registered an FIR bearing Crime No.230/2010 relating to an incident occurred on 3.11.2010 at 12:30 p.m. As per the complaint, the deceased-Shiv Kumar and the complainant were on their way to purchase kerosene. The respondent No.2 along with other co-accused persons obstructed the way by surrounding them and thereafter, it has been alleged that the respondent No.2 fired a gunshot on the chest of the deceased leading to his death. The FIR meticulously narrated the incident and in an unambiguous manner indicated the time of the incident i.e. 12:30 p.m. The police proceeded to investigate the matter and after investigation, it was discovered that the respondent No.2 was at ICICI Bank ATM located at Hazira, district Gwalior which is at the distance of 50 k.m. from the place of incident. Due to this revelation, the police dropped the name of the respondent No.2 at the time of filing of charge sheet, however, named all other persons whose overt-act was mentioned in the FIR.

3. After filing of the charge sheet, an application under section 319 of CrPC was preferred by the applicant on 3.4.2012, after recording of the statement of Virendra Singh (PW1) before the Court. This application was dismissed by the trial Court and the dismissal was assailed by filing a revision application before the High Court bearing Criminal Revision No.455/2012, which was disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to consider the said application afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned persons. This observation led to filing second application under section 319 of CrPC. This second application again suffered the same fate as the earlier one and was dismissed vide order dated 3.4.2013. The applicant being discontent with the outcome of the second application under section 319 of CrPC preferred a Criminal Revision No.

314/2013 which was decided on 27.3.2014 by this Court. The order passed by this Court was descriptive in nature and dealt with all the contentions as were available at relevant point of time. However, upon finding no merit in the revision application and in absence of any material which may dilute the evidence collected by the respondent No.1, the same was dismissed.

4. The matter escalated to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.21299/2014. Although the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not show any indulgence to the matter but reserved liberty to the trial Court to take cognizance against the respondent No.2 in case any further evidence comes into light. The perusal of the order dated 17.11.2014 reflects that an emphasis has been laid on the phrase further evidence.

5. In this background, the trial proceeded before the trial Court and statement of four more witnesses, namely, Dr. Sanjeev Bandil (PW2), Parimal (PW3), Damodar (PW4) and Dilip (PW5) were recorded. At this stage, another application under section 319 of CrPC was moved on 9.9.2015, on the ground that the Hon'ble apex Court had reserved liberty for filing of the fresh application if any further evidence comes into light. Such application was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 15.3.2016, on the ground that no further evidence has surfaced to validate filing of application under section 319 of CrPC.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has wrongly appreciated the liberty reserved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 17.11.2014 because the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically observed that if any new material is pointe