JUDGMENT 1. -The petitioner, who happens to be the complainant in this case, has challenged the order dated 26.7.2004 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu whereby he has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.PC. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.1.2005 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu has upheld the former order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 7.6.2000, one Rameshwar Lal lodged a report at P.S. Khetri. He alleged that at 9.30 PM while he was going to inform the villagers about the death which had occurred in his family, on the way, he was assaulted by 11 persons including the accused respondents .namely Dharmpal, Mohar Singh and Sampat. He also alleged that when he raised hue and cry, his son Vikram Singh rushed to rescue him. He further alleged that Vikram Singh was also assaulted by the accused respondents. Upon this report, a formal FIR was lodged for the offences under Ss. 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. However, while submitting the charge-sheet, police did not array the present accused respondents, named above, as accused persons. But the charge-sheet was filed only against two persons i.e. Amilal and Devi Saha. However, during the course of trial, the complainant-petitioner and two other eye witnesses deposed before the court about the involvement of accused respondents in the alleged offence. Subsequently, the complainant moved the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the accused respondents. However, vide order dated 26.7.2004, the learned Magistrate rejected the said application on the ground that although Vikram Singh does say that accused respondents had assaulted him, the other injured person i.e. Rameshwar Lal is silent on this point. Therefore, according to the learned Magistrate there is contradiction in the testimonies of the two injured persons. Since the complainant was aggrieved by the order dated 26.7.04, he filed a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. But vide order dated 19.1.2005, Addl. Sessions Judge had been equally pleased to dismiss the revision petition and to uphold the order dated 26.7.04. Hence, this petition before us. 3. Mr. Since the complainant was aggrieved by the order dated 26.7.04, he filed a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. But vide order dated 19.1.2005, Addl. Sessions Judge had been equally pleased to dismiss the revision petition and to uphold the order dated 26.7.04. Hence, this petition before us. 3. Mr. Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that not only the injured Vikram Singh and other two eyewitnesses have deposed before the court about the involvement of accused respondents, but even the injury report corroborates the testimonies of these witnesses. Hence, there was sufficient prima facie case against the accused respondents. Thus the learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.PC. He further contends that at the time of taking cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate could not appreciate the evidence in detail. Instead, the learned Magistrate is merely required to see whether prima facie case is made out against the accused respondents or not. Hence according to him, learned Magistrate has over stepped the jurisdiction vested in him. Similarly, he has argued that since the order dated 26.7.04 itself is unjustified, therefore, order dated 19.1.2005 is equally unsustainable. 4. On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Sharma, learned counsel for co-accused respondents, has claimed that injuries suffered by the injured persons were caused not by accused respondents, but were caused due to accident suffered by injured persons. He has further argued that accused persons have been roped in only because they are Government servants. Hence according to him, a false case has been foisted. He has further contended that Rameshwar Lal is silent about the involvement of present accused respondents. Hence according to him, both the impugned orders need not be disturbed. 5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties, as also the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Undoubtedly, Section 319, Cr.PC. comes into effect when the police has not arrayed the alleged offenders as accused persons while filing the charge-sheet, but sufficient evidence supports the case against the offenders during the course of trial. In the instant case, Vikram Singh in his examination-in-chief has clearly stated that he was assaulted by the accused respondents. According to the story of prosecution, Mohar Singh was armed with Jaily which is a sharp edged weapon. In the instant case, Vikram Singh in his examination-in-chief has clearly stated that he was assaulted by the accused respondents. According to the story of prosecution, Mohar Singh was armed with Jaily which is a sharp edged weapon. The injury report of Vikram Singh also indicates that he has suffered incised wound caused by sharp edged weapon. Thus, his testimony is corroborated by medical evidence. He is further supported by testimonies of other two witnesses. Merely because Rameshwar Lal is silent about the alleged offence committed by accused respondents, this by itself could not absolve them from criminal liability. When two persons are attacked by large number of persons, it is likely that injured, who is defending himself, may not give complete details of the incident. Hence Rameshwar Lal has deposed only the portion of incident which he remembers. The question whether there is contradiction between two injured persons is an issue that trial court is required to decide while passing the judgment. The issue can neither be raised not decided at the time of taking congnizance, evidence cannot be discussed in great detail. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate has over stepped the jurisdiction vested in him while refusing to take cognizance under Section 319 Cr.PC. Hence the order dated 26.7.04 is perverse. Since the first order is unsustainable, therefore, the later order dated 19.1.2005 is also unjustified. 7. In the result, we allow this petition, and quash and set aside the orders dated 26.7.04 and 19.1.2005. We direct the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate to re-hear the application under Section 319 Cr.PC. against the accused respondents namely Dharmpal, Mohar Singh and Sampat, and to proceed further with trial in accordance with law. However, it is clarified that any observation made in this order would not adversely effect the trial of accused respondents in any way.Petition allowed. *******