JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 6.9.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, Head Quarter, Barmer whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code for arraying the respondents Nos. 2 to 8 as accused for the offences under Sections 341 and 302/34 and 120B Indian Penal Code has been dismissed. 2. The short facts of the case are that the present petitioner submitted an F.I.R. at P.S. Ramsar, District Barmer against 11 named persons. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed only against six persons. The present respondents, who were named in the F.I.R., have been left by the police and no charge-sheet was filed against them. After the evidence of PW-7 Ahmed Khan and PW-8 Mehmood Khan, who were the eye-witnesses of the incident, the present petitioner, moved an application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code, which was rejected. Hence, this revision petition. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that the present respondents have been named in the F.I.R. and also in the statement of eye-witnesses Ahmed Khan and Mehmood Khan. Both these witnesses have categorically stated not only the presence of the respondents but their specific involvement in committing the murder. There is no reason to discard the testimonies of these two witnesses. Hence, the application should have been allowed. Reliance has been placed on Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr., (2007) 3 SCC (Cri.) 375 , and Y. Saraba Reddy v. Puthur Rami Reddy and Anr., JT 2007 (6) SC 460. 4. Per contra, the contention of the present respondents is that they have been falsely implicated in the case. No specific role has been assigned and only two witnesses have stated against them. The other witnesses, Rehmatullah, Yaru Khan and Joga Ram have not stated against them and even the prosecution witnesses are hostile and in the statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, none of the witnesses have stated anything against them. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Fleard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Fleard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. The F.I.R. reveals that the present respondents were named in the F.I.R. and it has also been stated that respondent No. 2 Fateh Singh was driving the vehicle and all the respondents were having dhariya, axe and lathies in their hands and all assaulted the deceased. The postmortem report also reveals that the deceased suffered six injuries. It is true that the cause of death is scalp injury but other injuries were also caused to the deceased. The complainant eye-witness Ahmed Khan has also stated in his evidence about the role of the present respondents that respondent Fateh Singh was driving the vehicle and all the accused persons were having weapons in their hands. Fateh Singh inflicted knife blow on the chest of the deceased. Hindal inflicted lathi blow on the hand of the deceased and at the same time, other eye-witness Mehmood Khan has also stated against the respondents. 7. The contention of the present petitioner is that the statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be looked into while considering the application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code 8. It is true that word "evidence" as contemplated in Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code specifies that the evidence of witnesses given in the Court is only the relevant material to consider the application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code and in the case of Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra), it has also been held by the Apex Court that statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code is not a substantive piece of evidence and in view' of the proviso to Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code, the use of these statements is limited and it cannot be taken as an evidence while considering the application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code 9. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that powers under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code are not extraordinary powers and there is no phenomenon that these powers should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances but rather the powers should be exercised when the occasion as provided under Section arises and if it appears to the Court from the evidence that someone else should be tried, he should be prosecuted with the other accused persons. 10. 10. In the light of the above, if we thresh out the present case, the respondents have been named in the F.I.R. and both the eye-witnesses have also stated against them and this is the sufficient evidence indicating their involvement in the offence. It is true that other witnesses have not corroborated the prosecution story but most of the other witnesses are formal witnesses and evidence PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be ignored at this stage. 11. Looking at the above, this revision is liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 6.9.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, Head Quarter, Barmer is quashed and set aside and the application filed under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code is allowed and the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 should be tried together with the other accused for the offences under Sections 341, 302/34 and 120B Indian Penal CodeThe stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.Revision allowed. *******