( 1 ) THIS revision case is filed by the accused in S. C. No. 305 of 2004 on the file of the assistant Sessions Judge, Pithapuram. ( 2 ) THE revision petitioner was impieaded as A. 12 in the above case in pursuance of an order dated 23-6-2005 passed in Criminal misc. Petition No. 12 of 2005 filed by the State represented by the Inspector of Police, gollaprolu P. S. under Section 319 Cr. P. C. . The revision petitioner being aggrieved by his impleadment as A. 12 in the above case preferred this revision challenging the same. ( 3 ) THE facts leading to the impleadment of the revision petitioner in S. C. No. 305 of 2004 are as follows: ( 4 ) ON a complaint given by P. W. 1 Crime no. 108 of 2001 was registered by Gollaprolu p. S. under Sections 147 ,448, 307, 324 read with 149 IPC. P. W. 1 stated in the complaint that on 28-10-2001 at about 9-30 a. m. while he was at this house along with his son, the petitioner and other accused came to his house armed with knives and spears. Out of those persons, the revision petitioner hacked with a knife on his chest by uttering that unless he dies, the village will not be safe. A-1 stabbed him with a spear on his right eye. The accused also caused injuries to his wife, son, daughter-in-law and his nephew. Due to previous rivalry between the families of the revision petitioner and himself, the revision petitioner and others attempted to kill him and when his wife tried to rescue, she was also beaten, causing bleeding injuries. On the basis of the said complaint, a crime was registered against all the accused, including the revision petitioner. ( 5 ) DURING the course of investigation the inspector of Police filed a Remand Report on 2-11-2001 wherein he mentioned that in the fir and in the statements of L. Ws. 1 to 5 it was mentioned that the revision petitioner attacked them along with other accused. But, as per the statements of the eyewitnesses, he did not participate in the commission of the offence. Since the eyewitnesses stated that the revision petitioner did not participate in the commission of the offence and as l Ws. 1 to 5 it was mentioned that the revision petitioner attacked them along with other accused. But, as per the statements of the eyewitnesses, he did not participate in the commission of the offence. Since the eyewitnesses stated that the revision petitioner did not participate in the commission of the offence and as l Ws. 11 and 12 stated that the revision petitioner was present at the place of road work at Chakali Puntha near China jaggampeta along with them from 6 a. m. to 10-30 a. m. by supervising the work and went away towards Vannepudi Village after coming to know about the occurrence, the name of the revision petitioner was deleted form the list of the accused. Subsequently, the inspector of Police filed charge-sheet on 5-4-2002. In the charge sheet also he mentioned that though the name of the revision petitioner was mentioned in FIR as well as in the statements of L. Ws. 1 to 5 as one of the persons who participated in the commission of the offence, the evidence of the eyewitnesses disclosed that he did not participate in the commission of offence, therefore, his name has been deleted form the list of the accused. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram took cognizance of the offence and numbered the case as p. R. C. No. 21 of 2002 and after committal it was numbered as S. C. No. 305 of 2004. Subsequently, the Inspector of Police filed criminal Misc. Petition No. 12 of 2005 under section 319 Cr. P. C. requesting the Court to implead the revision petitioner as co-accused. In the said application the Inspector of Police mentioned as follows: it is submitted to the Honourable Court that in 162 statements the witnesses have categorically stated about the offence committed by Vommi Chakram. P. W. 1 has also deposed before this honourable Court about the act done by Vommi Chakram. So, it clearly appears from the evidence of P. W. 1, FIR and 162 statements of other witnesses L. W. 2 to L. W. 5 that the said Vommi Chakram had participated in this offence. P. W. 1 has also deposed before this honourable Court about the act done by Vommi Chakram. So, it clearly appears from the evidence of P. W. 1, FIR and 162 statements of other witnesses L. W. 2 to L. W. 5 that the said Vommi Chakram had participated in this offence. ( 6 ) THE Inspector further mentioned that it is essential to try Vommi Chakram (revision petitioner) along with other accused and though the charge sheet is silent as to his involvement, during the recording the evidence of P. W. 1 the complicity of the said person has been noticed, therefore, he requested the Court to implead the revision petitioneras co-accused and issue summons to him. ( 7 ) THE learned Assistant Sessions Judge passed the impugned order permitting to implead the revision petitioneras co-accused along with other accused. In the impugned order the learned Assistant Sessions Judge observed as follows: 10. . . . . . . . a perusal of 161 Cr. P. C. statements of Saripalli Venkataramana, saripalli Subbarao, Saripalli Appala narasamma, Saripalli Venkata Laxmi and Kolluboina Mohana Rao reveals the involvement of Vommi Chakram in the commission of offence. Saripalli subbarao, who is examined as P. W. 1, categorically deposed in his evidence that on 28-10-2001 at about 9. 00 or 9. 30 a. m. when he and his son were standing at their gate all the accused came to the house and Vommi Chakram had hacked him with a knife on his right portion of the chest stating that the village will be peaceful if he would be killed. He also deposed that M. O. 3 is the knife used by Vommi Chakram in the commission of the offence. 14. As P. W. 1 has categorically deposed that Vommi Chakram has hacked on his chest with a knife and as he also identified the knife used by Chakram and as other injured also have stated about the involvement of Chakram in the commission of the offence, I am of the opinion that there is a prima facie evidence on record to show that Vommi chakram has committed the above offences leveled against the accused and that Chakram should be tried along with other accused. . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 8 ) IN the light of the above order, it has to be tested whether the material placed by the prosecution is making out a prime facie case against the revision petitioner. ( 9 ) L. Ws. 2 to 12 were examined during the investigation to speak about the occurrence. L. W. 2 is the son, L. W. 3 is the wife, L. W. 4 is the daughter-in-law, and L. W. 5 is the nephew of the complainant who was examined as l. W. 1. L. W. 2 mentioned in the 161 Cr. P. C. statement that on 28-10-2001 at about 9-30 a. m. when LW. 1 and himself were at the house, the revision petitioner and other accused armed with knives, sticks and spears came to their house and attacked them. ( 10 ) L. W. 3 stated that on the date of offence at about 9-30 a. m. when L. Ws. 1 and 2 were at the gate of their house, the revision petitioner and other accused armed with knives, sticks and spears came against their house. ( 11 ) L. W. 4 in her statement mentioned that on the date offence at about 9-30 a. m. when she was in the house, the revision petitioner and other accused came against their house armed with sticks, knives and spears and caused injuries to her husband and father-in-law. They also caused injuries to her, her mother-in-law and Kolliboina mohan Rao. She was stabbed twice on her right shoulder by Vommi Satyanarayana with a knife. ( 12 ) L. W. 5 mentioned in the statement that on the date of offence at about 9-30 a. m. while he was at the house of L. W. 1 after return from the field, the revision petitioner and other accused came against the house of L. W. 1 armed with knives, sticks and spears, attacked and caused injuries. They also caused injuries to L. W. 1 to 4. ( 13 ) L. W. 6 mentioned in her statement that on the date of offence at about 9-30 a. m. A-1 and other accused armed with sticks, knives and spears went against the house of l. W. 1 and attacked them. L. W. 1 to4received injuries. She tried to pacify those people, but they did not heed to her words. L. W. 1 to4received injuries. She tried to pacify those people, but they did not heed to her words. The revision petitioner was not present during the said incident. But, his name was included due to the disputes between the parties. The revision petitioner has no connection with the incident. ( 14 ) L. W. 7- Kuramdasu Veerababu mentioned in his statement that on the date of offence at about 9 a. m. A. 1 and L. W. 2 were abusing each other. In the mean while, the other accused being armed with sticks, knives and spears went against the house of l. W. 1 and caused injuries to them. ( 15 ) L W. 8- Kuramdasu Chittiyya did not mention about the revision petitioner participating in the commission of the offence. This witness specifically stated that the revision petitioner did not participate in the said incident and he is not concerned with the dispute. ( 16 ) L. W. 10 also did not mention about the presence of the revision petitioner at the time of the incident. He further mentioned that he came to know that the name of the revision petitioner was also included, but he did not participate in the commission of the offence and he is no way concerned with the incident. ( 17 ) L. W. 11 in his statement mentioned that on the date of offence the revision petitioner, 20 coolies and himself went to vannepudi Village, which was at a distance of 2 km. from their village, for the purpose of widening of the road under Food for Work scheme. While they were at the work place, at about 10-30 a. m. one Saripalli gopalakrishna came and informed about the incident and advised the revision petitioner not to enterthe village. Therefore, the revision petitioner went towards Vannepudi Village. This witness further stated that he came to know that P. W. 1 included the name of the revision petitioner also in the complaint. But, the revision petitioner was at the work place at the time of the incident. ( 18 ) L. W. 12 also stated that while he was at the work place along with the revision petitioner and other workers, Saripalli gopalakrishna came and informed about the incident in the village and advised the revision petitioner not to go the village. Later, the revision petitioner went towards Vannepudi village. ( 18 ) L. W. 12 also stated that while he was at the work place along with the revision petitioner and other workers, Saripalli gopalakrishna came and informed about the incident in the village and advised the revision petitioner not to go the village. Later, the revision petitioner went towards Vannepudi village. He further stated that he came to know that the name of the revision petitioner was also included in the complaint. ( 19 ) L. W. 13 also stated that at about 9-30 a. m. while proceeding in the street he noticed the incident, but the revision petitioner was not present among the men who attacked l. W. 1 and others. ( 20 ) THE above statement indicate that except L. W. 1 mentioning in the compliant and during evidence as P. W. 1 that the revision petitioner participated in the commission of the offence and caused injuries to him, the other witnesses did not mention in their statements about the revision petitioner causing injury to L. W. 1. L. W. 2 to 4 made a general allegation that the revision petitioner also came against their house and attacked them along with other accused, but they did not attribute any specific overt act to him, thought they mentioned about the other accused causing injuries to them. L. W. 5 also did not attribute any specific overt act to the revision petitioner, though he mentioned about the overt acts attributed to other accused. L. Ws. 6 to 8 and 10 to 13 who are independent witnesses specifically stated that the revision petitioner did not participate in the commission of the offence and his name was included due to the rivalry between the parties. ( 21 ) THE investigating officer deleted the name of the revision petitioner from the list of accused by taking into consideration the evidence of L. W. 6 to 8 and 10 to 13 that he did not participate in the commission of the offence and arrived at a conclusion that he was falsely implicated, therefore, his name was deleted from the list of accused in the charge sheet. The investing officer also took into consideration the rivalry between the revision petitioner and P. W. 1 and his family members, and did not give much weight due to the absence of corroborative evidence from independent witnesses regarding the participation of the revision petitioner in the commission of the offence. ( 22 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on some judgments of the Supreme Court. ( 23 ) IN Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation the Supreme Court while dealing with addition of a person as co-accused under Section 319 Cr. P. C. observed as follows: the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects while invoking power under S. 319 to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only discretion as could be discerned from the words" the Court may proceed against such person". The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. Judicial exercise is called for keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other person. (Paras 11, 12) ( 24 ) IN Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka the Supreme Court observed that the incident in question led to certain simple injuries and damage to crops. Twelve accused were facing the trial. Role attributed to the accused was of instigation. Proceedings against him were quashed by the High Court in the year 1995. Considering these facts Magistrate refused to summon the appellant as accused. Therefore, it can be held that the discretion was not illegally exercised by the Magistrate. Twelve accused were facing the trial. Role attributed to the accused was of instigation. Proceedings against him were quashed by the High Court in the year 1995. Considering these facts Magistrate refused to summon the appellant as accused. Therefore, it can be held that the discretion was not illegally exercised by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court further observed that the power to summon an accused is an extraordinary power conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. ( 25 ) AGAINST the above legal position, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on other decisions of the Supreme court regarding the scope of Section 319 cr. P. C. and exercise of discretion under section 319 Cr. P. C. in the present set of circumstances. ( 26 ) IN Bidyadhar Chadei v. State of Orissa the Orissa High Court held as follows: a person who has been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing his involvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court, then, he can legitimately be included as an accused to be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of S. 319 of the Code. The requirement of law under sub-section (1) of S. 319 is not to be invoked unless the trial Court thinks it necessary in the interest of justice to proceed against such person by invoking the power under S. 319 of the Code because such power should be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and not in a casual or regular manner. ( 27 ) IN Duryodhan v. State of M. P. the madhya Pradesh High Court held that when a person was omitted from prosecution by the investigating agency in the charge sheet, but when the statements of the witnesses made on oath are in corroboration with the fir showing involvement of the persons in crime, it can be made a basis for exercising powersof the Court under Section 319 Cr. P. C. to prosecute such persons. P. C. to prosecute such persons. ( 28 ) IN Rakesh v. State of Haryana the supreme Court held that there cannot be a dispute that power under Section 319 is to be sparingly used, but that would not mean that the prosecution of the persons who were involved in serious crime are not to be added as accused by exercise of such power. The supreme Court further held that a statement of prosecution witness recorded by the Court can be a prima facie material to enable the court to decide whether the person not arraigned before it is involved in crime or not and Section 319 Cr. P. C. does not contemplate cross-examination of the said witness prior to adding person as accused. ( 29 ) THE above legal position clearly indicates that the Court has every power to arraign any person as an accused by exercising powers under Section 319 Cr. P. C. if the Court is convinced that there is prima facie material to try such person for the offences for which the case was posted for trial, but, at the same time, the Court has to exercise the said power sparingly and it cannot be an automatic exercise of adding his as co-accused. ( 30 ) IN the case on hand, P. W. 1 attributed specific overt act of stabbing P. W. 1 with a knife. But, none of the prosecution witnesses stated in their 161 Cr. P. C. statement whether the revision petitioner was holding a knife and whether he caused injury to P. W. 1. When some of the witnesses attributed specific overt acts to otheraccused, nothing prevented them from mentioning about the overt act of the revision petitioner also. L. Ws. 2 to 4 simply stated that the revision petitioner and other accused came against the house of p. W. 1 and caused injuries. The offence alleged against the accused who are already on record are punishable under sections 147,448,307,324 read with 149 IPC. Noneof the witnesses, including P. W. 1 stated whether the petitioner instigated any of the accused to attack the injured persons. After going through the FIR, the evidence of P. W. 1 and the 161 Cr. P. C. statements of all other prosecution witnesses, I am convinced that there is no strong prima facie material against the revision petitioner to be included as an accused. After going through the FIR, the evidence of P. W. 1 and the 161 Cr. P. C. statements of all other prosecution witnesses, I am convinced that there is no strong prima facie material against the revision petitioner to be included as an accused. The rivalry between the parties is one of the circumstances to view the statement of P. W. 1 with suspicion. Since the statement of other witnesses did not corroborate the evidence of P. W. 1, the investigating officer was right in deleting the name of the revision petitioner. The material available on record is not prima faciesufficient to enable the Court to arraign the revision petitioner as an accused. The learned assistant Sessions Judge observed that as p. W. 1 categorically deposed that Vommi chakram hacked on his chest with a knife and as other injured also stated about the involvement of Chakram in the commission of offence, he is of the opinion that there is a prima facie evidence to show that Vommi chakram has committed the above offences leveled against him and others. Therefore, vommi Chakram should be tried along with other accused. In the light of the totality of the circumstances, in my considered view, the reasoning given by the learned Assistant sessions Judge without referring to the statements of the other witnesses cannot be accepted and the impugned order cannot be sustained ( 31 ) IN the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the Assistant Sessions judge dated 23-6-2005 is set aside. The name of the revision petitioner who was impleaded as one of the accused in the above case shall be deleted forthwith.