JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC. against the judgment dated 24.5.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 30/2005, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under section 319 Cr.PC. has been rejected. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this revision petition for disposal are that complainant petitioner Karamveer lodged a report at Police Station, Udyog Nagar on 26.7.2004, wherein Om Prakash and 3 others were named as accused. After investigation police filed challan against Hariom and Narendra for offence under section 323, 325, 336, 307/34 I.P.C. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. The trial court examined 3 witnesses, out of whom P.W. 2 Dinesh turned hostile. Thereafter, an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved. on behalf of prosecution for arraying Om Prakash and others as additional accused in the case. The application was partly allowed by the trial court and Om Prakash and Pooran were made as additional accused to face trial for the offence 323, 325, 336, 307 & 34 I.P.C. along with other accused. The order of the learned trial court allowing the application of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was challenged in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 851/2006. This Court after hearing both sides set aside the order on 23.8.2006. Thereafter, again an application was moved under section 319 Cr.PC. after recording of statement of Dr. Vinay Kumar Atre and two police witnesses. The learned trial court rejected the application vide order dated 24.5.2007. Hence this revision petition has been filed. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the statements of witnesses prima facie it has come that Hariom, Narendra, Pooran, Om Prakash and Karan Singh were responsible for inflicting Farsa blows and lathi blows on the person of Surendra and others. It is contended that in the statements of P.W. 1 Karamveer and P.W. 3 Surendra it has come that Narendra inflicted blow by sword on the legs of Karamveer. Hariom inflicted Farsa blow from the back side. Om Prakash inflicted lathi blow on the head. Pooran inflicted lathi blow on his left eye and Karan Singh was telling to kill both brothers i.e. Surendra and Karamveer. Hariom inflicted Farsa blow from the back side. Om Prakash inflicted lathi blow on the head. Pooran inflicted lathi blow on his left eye and Karan Singh was telling to kill both brothers i.e. Surendra and Karamveer. According to the learned counsel, in view of the above statements and in view of the doctor's evidence the application moved under section 319 Cr.RC. was required to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the accused respondents argued that there is no change in the circumstances in the present case except one that now doctor has been examined. It is contended that this Court while considering the matter in detail did not find involvement of other accused in this case, therefore, rejected the application. It is also contended that the order passed by this Court on 23.8.2006 in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 851/2006 has not been challenged any further. It has become final. 5. I have considered the submissions made before me. 6. It appears that on previous occasion when the application moved by the prosecution was allowed by the trial court, the order allowing the application under section 319 Cr.PC. was challenged before this Court and this Court at Page No. 2 of the order dated 23.8.2006 has observed as under : "Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that they have been named in the FIR and the witnesses in their court statements have also stated that they came there, they should be presumed to have common intention to commit the alleged offences. But in Kailash Dwivedi v. State of M.P. & Another, 2005(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 234 , there was evidence showing only presence of the appellant but no overt-act on his part was established, the trial court had refused to implead the appellant as additional accused, but the High Court reversed the order of the trial court. It was held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that High Court was in error in reversing the order of the trial court. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is untenable and unacceptable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore-mentioned authority. It is well settled that the special powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is untenable and unacceptable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore-mentioned authority. It is well settled that the special powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. These powers are discretionary and the court is not under any compelling obligation to arraign any person as additional accused. The court has to keep in view all the relevant factors while exercising these exceptional powers. The court has to keep in view as to whether there are reasonable prospects of the persons sought to be arraign as additional accused being convicted for the alleged offence at the trial." The Court further observed at page No. 3 as under : In the instant case, petitioner Om Prakash is alleged to.have given a lathi blow on the head of Surendra and Hari Om is also alleged to have given the first blow on his head. Injured Surendra has received only one injury on the head which is attributed to accused Hari Om who has been charge-sheeted and is facing trial along with others and no other corresponding injury on the head of Surendra has been detected. There is absolutely no allegation of having caused any injury against petitioner Pooran. This apart, nothing has appeared in the statements of the witnesses so far examined to indicate that these petitioners had common intention that the accused who have been charge-sheeted and are facing trial before the trial court so as to call for, justify and warrant arraigning of the petitioners as additional accused." 7. It is not in dispute that the above order has attained finality. The only evidence, which has been recorded in the present case is of the doctor. The learned counsel invited my attention towards the statement of the doctor and submitted that regarding injury No. 2 the doctor has not ruled out the possibility that injury on the head could be the result of two blows. In this case when cross examination is seen, it appears that the doctor has also not ruled out the possibility that injury on the head and other injuries on the person of Surendra could be the result of pelting of stones. In this case when cross examination is seen, it appears that the doctor has also not ruled out the possibility that injury on the head and other injuries on the person of Surendra could be the result of pelting of stones. The doctor's statement cannot be put at par with the evidence of eye-witnesses as it is only the.expert's opinion which required to be considered in the light of the evidence of eye-witnesses. 8. In the instant case, it is not necessary for me to discuss the facts in detail of the first information report and the statements of the witnesses P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 for the reason that this Court has already discussed the evidence in detail while deciding the revision petition filed by the accused petitioner. In my opinion when on previous occasion this Court has considered the matter in detail and set aside the order of the trial court taking cognizance against other accused persons then only in view of the statement of the doctor, petitioner's application moved under section 319 Cr.PC. is not liable to be allowed. In this case the independent witness P.W. 2 Dinesh has turned hostile. In relation to other evidence i.e. of P.W. 1 & P.W. 3 on previous occasion the matter has been discussed. Therefore on the basis of same set of evidence a different view is not required to be taken because this Court is not reviewing the earlier order passed by this Court. The learned trial court in a detailed order after assigning reasons rejected the application moved by the prosecution to take cognizance in relation to other accused persons. I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court committed illegality in not allowing the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The application moved under Section 319 Cr.PC. has been correctly rejected.Consequently, the petition stands rejected.Petition rejected. *******