JUDGMENT Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. This application in revision is directed against the order dated 1.11.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Kushinagar by which he has summoned the revisionist for facing trial punishable under Sections-147, 148, 149, 452, 302 and 323 I. P. C.? in S. T. No. 472 of 2005; State Versus Rajesh and others along with other co-accused under Section 319 Cr. P. C. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that although the revisionist was named in first information report but she was exonerated during investigation and chargesheet was submitted against other co-accused namely, Janardan, Habib, Suman and Manju. However P. W. 1 Yashwant, first informant and Kismawati Devi P. W. 2 were examined, the prosecution moved an application No. 58-Kha under Section 319 Cr. P. C. for arraying the revisionist as an additional accused and summoning her to stand trial. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that the court below after taking into consideration the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 has summoned the revisionist under Section 319 Cr. P. C. without recording any finding that there was likelihood of conviction of the revisionist. The allegation which has come in the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 that she had attacked the deceased with Gandasi (axe), although the ante-mortem injury of the deceased did not disclose any incised wound or any injury caused by Gandasi (axe) and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set-aside. 4. Per contra, learned A. G. A. supported the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting any interference by this Court. 5. He further referred to the ante-mortem injury no. 1 of deceased which is said to be? a lacerated wound and caused by a weapon which has been assigned to the revisionist. 6. After having very carefully examined the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, I am of the view that unless the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem is examined, it cannot be said that ante-mortem injury was caused by Gandasi and at this stage there does not appear to be sufficient evidence for proceeding against the revisionist. After going through the impugned order, I have also found that the court below has failed to record its satisfaction that there was no likelihood of conviction of the revisionist, thus, the impugned does not fulfill the necessary requirement laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarabjit Singh and another Versus State of Punjab and another reported in (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 141: (2009) 16 SCC 46 . 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 1.11.2010 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The revision is allowed. However, liberty is given to the prosecution to file a fresh application under Section 319 after the statement of doctor who had conducted the post-mortem report, is recorded.