JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner complainant challenging the order dated 12.05.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur in Sessions Case No.13/2007, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as additional accused in the case was rejected. 2. Learned counsel submits that there was unimpeachable evidence of the prosecution witnesses right from the FIR and during the course of the investigation, as per which, the respondent No.2 Bhagwandan caused the injury by axe on the head of PW-1 Asha and respondent No.3 Narayandan caused an injury by lathi on her leg and foot. Learned counsel submits that this fact was also mentioned by the witnesses in their testimony at the trial. 3. Thus, the learned trial Judge has committed grave error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for summoning these accused persons to stand trial with the chargesheeted accused. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 submits that now at the trial the statements of the accused are to be recorded. The injured Asha in her testimony at the trial has not stated that Bhagwandan gave her the axe blow on the head. He further submits that in the statement of Asha recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the allegation regarding the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 2. having assaulted her was not mentioned. Thus, he submits that on the basis of the improved version of the witnesses the accused cannot be directed to be added as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel also submits that for the purpose of proceedings against the new accused by virtue of Section 319 Cr.P.C., there has to be un-impeachable evidence which can lead to the possible conviction of the accused sought to be newly added. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar. 7. After having perused the material available on the record of the case, it becomes apparent that the application moved by the petitioner complainant for addition of additional accused was highly belated. 15 witnesses had already been examined by then and now the evidence of the prosecution has already been completed. 8. 7. After having perused the material available on the record of the case, it becomes apparent that the application moved by the petitioner complainant for addition of additional accused was highly belated. 15 witnesses had already been examined by then and now the evidence of the prosecution has already been completed. 8. A perusal of the statement of PW-1 Asha reveals that she has made improvement from her earlier version in relation to the participation of the accused persons sought to be summoned. That apart, Asha has stated in her examination in chief that Bhagwandan gave her an axe blow on the shoulder and in her cross examination she has stated that Bhagwandan caused an axe injury by the sharp side on her head. A perusal of the medical report of Asha reveals that she does not have any sharp weapon injury on her person. 9. Thus, this Court feels that the application filed by the petitioner complainant for summoning of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as additional accused was rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge. This Court also feels that on the basis 3. of the evidence which was led by the prosecution at the trial, there was not even a remote possibility of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 being convicted in the case. The application was also preferred at a highly belated stage as 15 witnesses had already been examined when the application for addition of additional accused was moved. 10. Resultantly, the revision petition as well as stay petition being bereft of force are hereby dismissed. 11. The learned trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.Revision dismissed. *******