Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 29.08.2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 36/2005, whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the impugned order as also the challan papers filed by the police. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the name of Non-petitioner No. 2 has been mentioned in the FIR bearing No. 23/16.01.2005, which was lodged promptly after the occurrence, wherein it has been specifically stated that Non-petitioner No. 2 Ramesh Singh caused injuries to the present petitioner as well as to deceased Tara Chand. The petitioner himself was examined before the trial Court as PW. 3 and made a similar statement. There is direct and cogent evidence, from which it is more than clear that Non-petitioner No. 2 Ramesh Singh, not being an accused, as committed the offence, for which he could be tried together with the accused already facing trial. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, despite the evidence against the Non-petitioner No. 2 available on record i.e., the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code, for the reasons best known to the police, the Non-petitioner No. 2 was not challaned and when the petitioner himself appeared before the trial Court and made statement on oath and there is specific allegation against Non-petitioner No. 2 that he caused injuries to the petitioner as well as to deceased Tara Chand, yet the trial Court fell in error in not arraigning the Non-petitioner No. 2 as an accused in the case. 4. Learned Counsel for the Non-petitioner No. 2 supported the order impugned and contended that there are certain contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses made before the Court and their previous statements and, therefore, the trial Court rightly exercised the discretion in dismissing the application filed under Section 319 of the Code. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties. 6. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties. 6. In the FIR lodged by the petitioner on 16.01.2005 which appears to be a prompt report, it has been alleged that co-accused Prabhu Singh alias Pappu, Gurmeet Singh and Non-petitioner No. 2 Ramesh Singh came with Lathis and Gandasi. All the three surrounded him and started assaulting him on his skull and other parts of the body. He raised cries and on hearing the cries, his father Tara Chand and younger brother Vinod and then these persons started assaulting his father in order to murder him. Co-accused Prabhu Singh alias Pappu inflicted Gandasi blow on the head of his father, on which he fell down. When his father fell down, co-accused Gurmeet Singh, Prabhu Singh alias Pappu and Non-petitioner No. 2 Ramesh Singh started assaulting petitioners father. By that time, his mother Mani Devi came and rescued them. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code, the petitioner, who is the author of the FIR, stated that his father Tara Chand was assaulted by Prabhu Singh by Gandasi and Gurmeet Singh and Non-petitioner No. 2 Ramesh Singh caused injuries to his father by Lathis. Even in the statements of Krishna Lal, Munshi Ram etc. recorded under Section 161 of the Code, the presence of Non-petitioner No. 2 Ramesh Singh at the place of the occurrence has been shown. In the statement of Vinod Kumar recorded under Section 161 of the Code, it has been stated that Non-petitioner No. 2 inflicted injuries to his deceased father. 7. Before the trial Court, the petitioner himself appeared as PW. 3 and categorically stated that the Non-petitioner No. 2 and co-accused Gurmeet Singh and Prabhu Singh came armed with Lathis and Gandasi and started assaulting them. Co-accused Prabhu Singh alias Pappu had a Gandasi whereas co-accused Gurmeet Singh and Non-petitioner No. 2 had Lathis. All the three caused injuries to him on his skull and shoulder; he raised cries, on which his father Tara Chand came to rescue him. The moment his father Tara Chand came, co-accused Prabhu Singh gave a Gandasi blow on his skull; his father fell down and thereafter all the three persons caused injuries to his father, mother etc. 8. Similar is the statement of PW. The moment his father Tara Chand came, co-accused Prabhu Singh gave a Gandasi blow on his skull; his father fell down and thereafter all the three persons caused injuries to his father, mother etc. 8. Similar is the statement of PW. 4 Dilip Kumar, who categorically stated that Non-petitioner No. 2 Ramesh Singh, co-accused Prabhu Singh alias Pappu and Gurmeet Singh, all the three came with Lathis and Gandasi, caused injuries to Rajendra. Co-accused Prabhu Singh alias Pappu had a Gandasi and Non-petitioner No. 2 and co-accused Gurmeet Singh had Lathis. On hearing the cries of the petitioner, his father Tara Chand came. Co-accused Prabhu Singh alias Pappu inflicted injury to Tara Chand by Gandasi, who fell down and thereafter all the three persons caused injuries to deceased Tara Chand. 9. From the statements of the witnesses noticed above, recorded by the trial Court, as also the FIR and statement under Section 161 of the Code recorded by the police during investigation, prima facie there is evidence that Non-petitioner No. 2 Ramesh Singh, alongwith co-accused Gurmeet Singh and Prabhu Singh alias Pappu, caused injuries to the petitioner and his father deceased Tara Chand. From the perusal of the post-mortem report of deceased Tara Chand, it appears that he suffered as many as four injuries on his person. The statements of the petitioner and other witnesses find corroboration from the medical evidence. Therefore, at this stage, there is sufficient material to presume that Non-petitioner No. 2 Ramesh Singh, not being an accused, has committed the offence, for which he could be tried together with the co-accused persons already facing trial. 10. In Smt. Bhouti vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1998 CrLR 151 (Raj.), this Court held that at the time of deciding application under Section 319 of the Code, the trial Court is not required to appreciate the evidence minutely. In that case, the name of accused sought to be impleaded under Section 39 of the Code was already disclosed in the FIR at the earlier point of time. The defence of accused was one of alibi which is a matter of evidence and cannot be decided at this stage. In that case, there was evidence of three eye witnesses who have given the name of the accused therein in their statements. The defence of accused was one of alibi which is a matter of evidence and cannot be decided at this stage. In that case, there was evidence of three eye witnesses who have given the name of the accused therein in their statements. However, learned trial Judge in that case, was of the opinion that independent witnesses have not implicated the accused sought to be impleaded and not shown his presence at the time of commission of the offence and, therefore, the trial Judge of the opinion that the accused sought to be impleaded was not there at the time of commission of offence. This Court held that reasoning given by the trial Judge is wholly unsustainable. Even on the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge has to consider the evidence of other witnesses alongwith independent witnesses. If the evidence of other witnesses is found otherwise acceptable, then there is no reason for the Court not to convict the accused against whom there is an evidence. 11. In State of Rajasthan vs. Mangilal, 2002 (2) CrLR 839 (Raj.), this Court held that Section 319 of the Code gives ample power to any Court to take cognizance and add any person not being an accused before it and try him alongwith the other accused. In these circumstances, therefore, if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfies the Court that the other accused or those who have not been arrayed as accused against whom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the offence, the Court can take cognizance against them and try them alongwith the other accused. But this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. 12. It was further held that the expression “any person not being the accused” occurring in Section 319 of the Code clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319(1) of the Code clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the criminal Court are included in the said expression. Both under Sections 193 and 209 of the Code, the commitment is of “the case” and not of “the accused” vide Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 339 . 13. In Rakesh & Anr. vs. State of Haryana, 2001 (6) SCC 248 , the Honble Supreme Court held that although power under Section 319 of the Code should be sparingly exercised but where prosecution witnesses name certain persons as being involved in a serious crime, their addition as accused in exercise of power would not be unwarranted. The Apex Court further held that on the basis of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, other persons can be arraigned as accused and while doing so, cross-examination of such witnesses is not necessary because the opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses would be available to such persons at the time of trial. 14. In Michael Machado & Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2000 SCC (Cri.) 609, the Honble Supreme Court observed as under:-“The basic requirements for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence fro which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned.” The Honble Apex Court further held as under:-“But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only a direction as could be discerned from the words the Court may proceed against such persons. 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 other person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has already proceeded 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 of the Court to proceed against other persons.” 15. Learned Counsel for the Non-petitioner No. 2 has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Laxman Ram Meghwal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, [ 2005 (7) RDD 2434 (Raj)] = 2005 WLC (UC) 638 (Raj.). It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty of the Court to proceed against other persons.” 15. Learned Counsel for the Non-petitioner No. 2 has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Laxman Ram Meghwal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, [ 2005 (7) RDD 2434 (Raj)] = 2005 WLC (UC) 638 (Raj.). In that case, there were material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses apart from various infirmities in the prosecution case, whereas in the instant case, at this stage, there are sufficient material on record, as noticed above, to presume that the Non-petitioner No. 2, not being an accused, has committed the offence, for which he could be tried together with co-accused already facing trial. 16. Consequently, the revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned dated 29.08.2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 36/2005 is hereby set aside. The application under Section 319 of the Code is allowed. Non-petitioner No. 2 Ramesh Singh is arraigned as accused in the aforesaid sessions case and the trial Court shall secure his presence by non-bailable warrant and he shall be tried together with the co-accused facing trial. The stay petition also stands disposed of .q