O R D E R

This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the dismissal of an application filed by the prosecution to add respondents 6 and 7 as accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 2. The Karimkunnam Police registered a crime against five persons as Crime No.244 of 2014 under Sections 323, 324, 326A r/w 34 of IPC. They are arrayed as respondents 3 to 7. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained CW1 on 0n 06.05.2014 at 04.30 p.m., on the road margin near the waiting shed at Purappuzha junction, the 2^nd accused voluntarily caused hurt to him by hitting on his head, the 3^rd accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to him by spraying acid on his face and all the accused voluntarily caused hurt to him by beating all over his body and thereby committed the said offences.

4. After investigation, the police filed final report against the three accused only who are respondents 3 to 5. Those three accused faced trial before the Assistant Sessions Court, Thodupuzha (for short, 'the trial court'). After the examination of CW1 as PW1, the prosecution filed an application as C.M.P. No.182 of 2016 to add respondents 6 and 7 as accused. The trial court allowed that application. The respondents 6 and 7 challenged the said order before this Court in Crl.M.C.No.333 of 2017. This Court, as per order dated 09.06.2017, set aside the order of the trial court with the observation that, in the course of the trial, after the examination of all or some of the occurrence witnesses, if the trial court is satisfied that it is a fit case to invoke the provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C, it may do so. CWs2 to 4 were examined as PWs 2 to 4. Thereafter, the prosecution again filed an application as Crl.M.P.No.609 of 2017 to add respondents 6 and 7 as accused. It was dismissed as per the impugned order.

The victim challenges the said order in this revision petition.

5. I have heard Sri.George Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7 and Smt.V.Sreeja, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence of PWs1 and 4 would clearly prove the involvement of respondents 6 and 7 in the incident and hence, the trial court ought to have allowed the application. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7 submitted that unless there is a reasonable prospect of a person being convicted, he shall not be added as accused by invoking the provision of Section 319 of Cr.P.C and the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to suggest that there is every probability for the conviction of the proposed accused. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial court has rightly rejected the application and this Court under the exercise of power under Section 397 of Cr.P.C cannot interfere with the said order. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Shankar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2024 SC 3085) and Hetram @ Babli v.

State of Rajasthan (2024 KHC 8526).

7. I have perused the records.

8. The crime was registered based on the FI statement given by the victim/injured, who is none other than the revision petitioner. In the FIS itself, he has named respondents 6 and 7. The specific overt acts against respondents 6 and 7 were also mentioned. The petitioner when examined as PW1 gave evidence that respondents 6 and 7 were present at the spot and assaulted him. He also identified the respondents 6 and 7. The said evidence has not been contradicted while PW1 was examined. PW4 gave evidence that respondents 6 and 7 were present at the spot and manhandled PW1 by beating on his face and head and kicking him while he was lying on the ground. However, the said part of the evidence of PW1 was contradicted as material omission. A reading of all the two decisions cited by the learned counsel for th