ORAL ORDER The Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.02.2012 passed by the FTC No.5, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No.193 of 2010 by which he has summoned the Petitioner to face trial under section 319 Cr. P. C. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that he was not named in the First Information Report nor during entire investigation, but he was subsequently named by four witnesses during trial as one of the assailants of the deceased. In his submission, the statements are clearly improvement and have no evidentiary value and, therefore, the order of the Court below is fit to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the Informant submits that the Petitioner is named in the further statement of the Informant recorded in paragraph 6 of the case diary, supervision note as well as Panchnama prepared at Gorakhpur where the deceased was being treated. Further, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2007(4) PLJR SC 144 (Y. Saraba Reddy Vs. Puthur Ravi Reddy and another), wherein, it was decided by the Apex Court that the Trial Court should confine itself to the materials adduced during trial to decide the issue of summoning an additional accused under section 319 Cr. P. C. without looking into the case diary. 4. I have personally gone through the case diary and find that in paragraph 6 further statement of the Informant has been recorded, wherein, he has specifically mentioned that his uncles Dayanand Yadav, Dinesh Yadav and Manager Yadav in a drunken state were abusing his parents upon which a fight escalated and they were variously assaulted by them on account of which his mother was seriously injured and died during treatment. In the last portion of the statement, the Investigating Officer is said to have put a question to him as to why the Petitioner was being named by him even though he was not named in the First Information Report to which he did not satisfactorily reply. I am surprised at the query made by the Investigating Officer since evidently the Petitioner had not been named by the Informant in the earlier part of the further statement. 5. As for supervision note, it is well known that it has no evidentiary value. I am surprised at the query made by the Investigating Officer since evidently the Petitioner had not been named by the Informant in the earlier part of the further statement. 5. As for supervision note, it is well known that it has no evidentiary value. The Panchnama produced before this Court has also no evidentiary value since it is not the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. by the Investigating Officer in the present case. The Panchnama appears to have been prepared by five persons including three witnesses who have named the Petitioner during trial. 6. The principles of Section 319 Cr. P. C. are clear, inasmuch, as even though it gives immense powers to the Trial Court to summon any accused, who may have committed the crime, there is a word of caution that any person, who is not likely to be convicted should not be summoned. In the present case, undoubtedly, the witnesses, who have named the Petitioner, have not named him during investigation in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. 7. Section 162 Cr. P. C. explanation clearly indicates that “an omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be question of fact”. 8. Therefore, the improvements of the witnesses during trial are clearly contradiction and that is not enough to convict the Petitioner. 9. In view of such, the order dated 21.02.2012 passed by the FTC No.5, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No.193 of 2010 is hereby set aside. 10. The application stands allowed.