JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The petitioners stands aggrieved by the impugned orders pronounced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, orders whereof occurred on an application preferred therebefore by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby it allowed the application aforesaid. Consequently he/they by instituting the instant petitions herebefore concert to assail it. 2. The principal offenders stood charged sheeted by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences constituted under Sections 302, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The counsel for the petitioner contends of the discretion vested in the learned trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. standing capriciously besides arbitrarily exercised by him arising from his proceeding to impute sanctity qua the relevant factum embodied in the incriminatory evidentiary material purportedly pronouncing upon their inculpation in the offences alleged, though it warranted ouster, it standing ridden with entrenched taints of embellishment besides improvements vis-à-vis the relevant previous statements recorded in writing of the witnesses concerned. The learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a judgment reported in Ramdhan Mali and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2014) 3 SCC 92 encapsulating therewithin the principles enjoined to borne in mind by the Court concerned while pronouncing a verdict upon an application constituted therebefore under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The trite expostulation of law encompassed therein is qua the inculpatory evidence, as upsurges against the accused who initially stood not arrayed as an accused alongwith the principal accused, holding a degree of vigourous tenacity, vigour whereof if remains unrebutted would sequel findings of conviction standing returned against the accused sought to be summoned as an accused. He contends of only on evident display of reverence standing meted thereto by the Court concerned would imbue validation to its apposite order for subsequent impleadment of accused/petitioner alongwith the initially arrayed principal accused, contrarily when reverence thereto stands unmeted by the Court concerned, its rendition would stand visited with a vice of invalidation. However, the aforesaid rendition of the Hon’ble Apex Court does not hold out any straitjacket formula for guiding courts of law qua theirs therewithin exercising the discretion conferred upon them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Consequently, on anvil thereof alone a conclusion cannot be rested by this Court of the impugned order suffering invalidation. However, the aforesaid rendition of the Hon’ble Apex Court does not hold out any straitjacket formula for guiding courts of law qua theirs therewithin exercising the discretion conferred upon them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Consequently, on anvil thereof alone a conclusion cannot be rested by this Court of the impugned order suffering invalidation. However, the trite test for imputing sanctity qua emanation of incriminatory evidence subsequent to the principal accused standing charge-sheeted by the Court concerned emanation whereof vis-à-vis persons other than the principal accused hence warrants theirs standing joined as accused with the principal accused, is of the relevant incriminatory evidence prima facie on its objective discernment holding potent portrayals qua the penal inculpability of a person not therebefore initially arrayed as an accused alongwith the principal accused whereupon his standing joined as an accused alongwith principal accused is warranted. Also the relevant incriminatory evidence qua them if remaining unrebutted would constrain the Court concerned to record findings of conviction against them, would lend amplifying incriminatory vigour to it. Furthermore, even if the rendition of the Hon’ble Apex Court does not hold any straitjacket formula qua the facet aforesaid yet the discretion as vested in the learned trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. enjoins its standing exercised on its drawing an objective satisfaction from the relevant evidentiary material qua its pronouncing with tenacity qua the purported penal culpability of the persons/person sought to be arrayed as an accused alongwith the principal accused besides the relevant evidentiary material occurring therebefore standing bereft of any stain of improvement besides embellishments vis-à-vis the previous statements of the relevant prosecution witnesses whereupon no findings of conviction are warranted to be returned against a person concerted by the Public Prosecutor concerned to be arrayed alongwith the principal accused concerned to face trial. 3. 3. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles it is the solemn duty of this Court to gauge from the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the trite factum of the relevant echoings occurring therein qua the ascriptions of penal inculpability vis-à-vis the petitioners herein holding concurrence with the aforesaid principle also to conclude therefrom of in the event of the aforesaid principles standing irrevered by the learned Court concerned, its ordering for summoning the petitioner herein as co-accused for facilitating his facing trial alongwith the principal accused, warranting interference, its obviously standing rendered in gross departure by it of the legal principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by it on an application moved therebefore under Section 319 Cr.P.C. whereupon a concomitant inference of its standing ridden with a vice of its standing rendered in a post haste manner also its suffering from a vice of thorough non application of mind would stand garnered. The ascription of an inculpatory role vis-à-vis Sunil stands deposed by Virender, Kulbhushan and Surinder. The name of Sunil does not occur in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. PW-8 in his previous statement recorded in writing, statement whereof stood recorded on two days elapsing since the lodging of the F.I.R, makes underlinings therein of one Bhopal unravelling to him qua his receiving a telephonic intimation from one Surinder qua the latter holding a scuffle with Kalyan, Anil and Onkar during course whereof Sunil stood struck a knife blow on his back by one Kulbhushan. In consonance therewith he made a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, when in departure therefrom hence in gross improvement besides embellishment thereof PW-8 voices of Sunil snatching an axe from Kalyan Singh renders the aforesaid ascription by him of an inculpatory role vis-à-vis Sunil to be wanting in legal vigour. Consequently, the learned trial Court in relying upon the deposition of PW Virender in concluding qua its constituting an incriminatory evidence vis-à-vis Sunil appears to infract the expostulation of law cast in the rendition of the Hon’ble Apex Court qua its imperatively making an objective assessment of the degree of vigour of the inculpatory evidence adduced therebefore whereupon it would hold solemnity besides sanctity, specifically if it remains unrebutted, for recording of findings of conviction against the petitioner Sunil. Also the rendition of the learned trial Court permitting the arraying of Sunil as a co-accused alongwith the principal accused for facilitating his facing trial alongwith the latter hence suffers from an apparent vice of non-application of mind rather its standing prima facie ingrained with a taint of it standing rendered in a post haste besides mechanical manner wherefrom it prima facie formed erroneous conclusions qua the inculpatory role fastenable vis-à-vis petitioner Sunil. Likewise, the testimony of Surinder suffers from an alike infirmity. Consequently, reliance thereupon by the learned trial Court suffers from an akin infirmity. The conclusion aforesaid constrains this Court to tentatively conclude qua the order rendered by the learned trial Court qua arraying of the petitioner as co-accused alongwith principal accused may be warrant its being quashed and set-aside. Be that as it may with Surinder who had purveyed an information to Bhopal, the latter whereof conveyed the information qua the occurrence to informant Virender significantly hence when PW Surinder an ocular witness to the occurrence in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. ascribes an incriminatory role to Sunil qua his holding him by his neck besides subjecting him to beatings would yet render belittled the afore-referred infirmities gripping the respective testimonies of PW Varinder and Kulbhushan. Contrarily his deposing in tandem therewith gives succor to his testification wherein he makes ascriptions qua the incriminatory role of petitioner Sunil. Moreover when hence it is bereft of any vice of it constituting an improvement besides embellishment vis-à-vis his previous statement recorded in writing, as a corollary when the ocular testification of PW Surinder qua the occurrence embodies therein prima facie a credible ocular account qua it, it hence constitutes the prime incriminatory evidence whereupon a relevant conclusion is warranted qua hence the amenability of accused/petitioner Sunil facing trial alongwith the principal accused for the offences constituted in the F.I.R. preponderantly when the factum of its holding a prima facie virtue of truth emanates on its objective discernment. Also hence the impugned rendition of the learned trial Court vis-à-vis the petitioner Sunil is not bereft of its standing rendered in a summary manner without application of mind to the potency of the relevant evidentiary material which prima facie warrants the arraying of the petitioner Sunil as an accused alongwith the principal accused also with PW Surinder alone eye witnessing the occurrence whereas both PW Virender and Kulbhushan not witnessing it rather theirs rendering a hearsay account qua it renders their respective deposition being may be discardable even when they stand visited with any vice of any improvement or embellishment vis-à-vis their previous statements recorded in writing sequelly also with theirs respective testifications being both irrelevant to rest the relevant pivotal fact, factum whereof prima facie stands rested by the relevant ocular account qua his inculpatory role rendered by Surinder besides when the latter’s ocular testification alone constitutes the relevant evidence for inculpating besides arraying him as an accused alongwith the principal accused also hence alone holds sway for the learned trial Court to on anvil thereof rest its relevant findings qua the relevant accused, imperatively warrants deference standing meted thereto. 4. Hereinafter it is imperative to allude to the tenacity of upsurgings of an incriminatory role vis-à-vis Baldev Singh subsequent to the principal accused standing subjected to face trial for the charge as stood put to them by the learned trial Court also it is an utmost obligation of this Court to determine whether the relevant incriminatory evidentiary material vis-à-vis Baldev Singh satiating the expostulation of law aforesaid. PW Surinder an ocular witness to the occurrence who purveyed an information qua it to the informant PW-Virender hence is the solitary PW warranting discernment of his testification, for constraining this Court to conclude qua his testification wherein he ascribes an incriminatory role vis-à-vis Baldev Singh prima facie holding legal worth. He in his testification in concurrence with his previous statement recorded in writing has ascribed to Baldev Singh an incriminatory role qua his belabouring him. His deposing in tandem with his previous statement recorded in writing renders the taint of improvement if any vis.a.vis his previous statement recorded in writing hence gripping the testification of PW Virender the informant to stand effaced. His deposing in tandem with his previous statement recorded in writing renders the taint of improvement if any vis.a.vis his previous statement recorded in writing hence gripping the testification of PW Virender the informant to stand effaced. Moreso when the informant made a disclosure qua the occurrence on intimation standing purveyed to him by Surinder, an ocular witness thereto who occularly testifies in concurrence with his previous statement recorded in writing rendering hence his testimony to be construable to be bereft of any taint. Also reliance thereupon by the learned trial Court for ordering the summoning of Baldev is apt. 5. Also even when the testification of PW Virender the informant holds any taints of his improving upon his previous statement recorded in writing its effect stands effaced, on account of his making a disclosure qua the occurrence on intimation standing purveyed to him by Surender an ocular witness thereto, the latter whereof rather prima facie at this stage has rendered a credible ocular account qua it bereft of any taint. In sequel, when the relevant test encapsulated in the rendition of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra) qua the relevant incriminatory evidence qua the petitioners herein holding on their objective discernment a degree of vigour when for reasons aforestated stands satiated. In aftermath, the order of the learned trial Court summoning them as accused does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. Likewise, the inculpation of Sansar Chand by PW Virender and PW Kulbhushan when may suffer from taints of improvements or embellishment vis-à-vis their respective previous statements recorded in writing nonetheless effect thereof stands subsumed by PW Surinder an ocular witness to the ill-fated occurrence testifying in tandem with his previous statement recorded in writing. 7. The ascription of an inculpatory role qua Rajesh and Satish Kumar occurs in the statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. wherein the informant narrates of petitioner accused Rajesh in association with Satish assaulting her family. However, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she exculpates the penal inculpation in the occurrence of accused Rajesh and Satish. She in her testification on oath in departure from her previous statement recorded in writing ascribes an incriminatory role to them comprised in theirs alongwith Surinder, Kulbushan and Bhopal exchanging hot words with Kalyan Singh and of accused Surrender holding him from his collar. She in her testification on oath in departure from her previous statement recorded in writing ascribes an incriminatory role to them comprised in theirs alongwith Surinder, Kulbushan and Bhopal exchanging hot words with Kalyan Singh and of accused Surrender holding him from his collar. Even if PW Shreshta Devi has by improving also by embellishing vis-à-vis her previous statement recorded in writing rendered her testimony to be tainted hence standing imbued with a taint of uncreditworthiness. However, the deposition of PW Kalyan Singh warrants its not standing slighted prominently when therein he makes an incriminatory ascription vis-à-vis accused Rajesh and Satish qua theirs alongwith other co-accused holding and pushing him towards the house of one Punjab Singh. The prosecution version qua the occurrence for it to attain a virtue of credibility is enjoined to be bereft of any inter se contradictions, contradictions whereof occur in the testimonies of PW Shreshta Devi. However, with PW Kalyan Singh while testifying qua the inculpation of accused Rajesh Kumar has deposed in tandem with his previous statement recorded in writing renders the rendition by him of an ocular account qua the occurrence wherein he makes echoings of penally inculpable participation of petitioner Rajesh in the alleged occurrence, to be not discardable also the factum of his rendering a deposition qua the occurrence with rife intra se contradictions vis-à-vis testifications qua the occurrence rendered by Shreshta Devi also with the latters testification standing ingrained with an inherent vice of improvement besides embellishment vis.a.vis Rajesh and Satish Kumar would not deter this Court to not interfere with the impugned rendition of the learned trial Court as the incriminatory evidence aforesaid is open to rebuttal by the learned counsel for the aforesaid or by the Public Prosecutor by his subjecting PWs aforesaid to cross-examination on completion whereof alone it would be appropriate to conclude of their respective depositions standing unrebutted whereupon alone it would be apt to conclude of any renditions by PWs aforesaid qua the occurrence wanting or not wanting in legal vigour for hence the learned trial Court founding or not founding thereupon findings of conviction vis-à-vis Rajesh and Satish. However, when the stage aforesaid has not arrived it would be inexpedient for this Court to make a conclusion aforesaid also any making of the conclusion aforesaid by this Court would tantamount to its embarking upon a deep fishing inquiry qua the veracity of their respective depositions qua the occurrence, concert whereof at this stage is not warranted. Also when it is for the learned trial Court to respectively weigh the probative worth of the respective testifications of Kalyan Singh and Shreshta Devi, hence in this Court validating or invalidating herebefore the sanctity of their respective testimonies would tantamount to its arrogating to itself the primary duty of the learned trial Court also would benumb the effort if any of the learned Public Prosecutor concerned to from Shreshta Devi unearth revelations qua the occurrence in support of the prosecution case. 8. Accordingly, all the petitions are dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.