JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. Order dated 8th April, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Kandi, Murshidabad in Sessions serial no. 209 of 2012 issuing summons upon the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been assailed. 2. First Information Report in the instant case was lodged by one Meraj Hakim, father of the victim, inter-alia, alleging that his son had left the residence on 12.09.2009 at 7-30 p.m. and thereafter did not return. On 13.09.2009 the body of his son was found with various injuries. In the First Information Report no body was named as an accused person. In the course of investigation statement of one Serena @ Sonali Bibi (P.W. 9) was recorded wherein she stated that the victim had told her that he was assaulted by Abu Bakkar and Naim. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was, however, filed against Abu Bakkar. In the course of trial Serena @ Sonali Bibi was examined as P.W. 9 and in her deposition she stated that the victim had told her that Abu Bakkar, Nasim and Naim had beaten him up and she had found the aforesaid persons were washing their hands and face in the pond of Naim. The statement of the said witness as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also exhibited. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the petitioners were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 4. Mr. Sanyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that no body was named as accused in the first information report. Hence, the version of P.W. 9 that the victim had disclosed the names of the petitioners to her is an afterthought. He further submits that the statement of P.W. 9 was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. belatedly, i.e. 13 days after the incident and accordingly ought not to have been the foundation of the impugned order. 5. Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party on the other hand submits that the evidence of P.W. 9 in Court implicates the petitioners as the assailants as evident from the narration of the deceased. He further submits that the name of Naim had even transpired in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 6. I have considered the materials on record in the light of the respective submissions. He further submits that the name of Naim had even transpired in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 6. I have considered the materials on record in the light of the respective submissions. Section 319 Cr.P.C., inter-alia, empowers the Court to summon any person as an accused person provided there is sufficient material on record to justify a prima facie case against him [See Jogendra Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2015) 9 SCC 244 para 9 and 10]. Mere stray uncorroborated statement of a witness may not constitute the foundation of a summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 7. Examining the evidence of P.W. 9 in the aforesaid perspective, I find that the name of Naim had transpired as an assailant along with co-accused Bakkar not only during deposition in Court but also in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation. Hence, her deposition with regard to involvement of Naim in Court finds corroboration from her previous statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, no such corroboration is evident in respect of her evidence with regard to Nasim as she is significantly silent as to his role in her earlier statement. 8. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that while the trial Court was justified in summoning Naim for trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. it was not in the interest of justice to summon Nasim under the aforesaid provision of law on the basis of the uncorroborated sole testimony of P.W. 8 particularly when such implication of the said petitioner no. 1 (Nasim) appears to be an embellishment to her previous statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 9. Order dated 8th April, 2015 summoning petitioner no. 1 is accordingly set aside. However, trial will proceed against the petitioner no. 2 along with other accused persons in accordance with law. 10. The revision petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the application being CRAN No. 610 of 2016 is disposed of.