JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. Present revision is preferred assailing the order dated 12.10.2015, passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar in Session Trial No. 237 of 2013, whereby application moved by Saleem/informant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon Aslam/respondent No. 2 as an additional accused was rejected. 2. An F.I.R. Case Crime No. 360 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323 and 506 I.P.C. was got registered on 14.11.2012 with Police Station Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Hardiwar by Saleem /revisionist, herein, stating therein that on the previous day, i.e. 13.11.2012 at about 3:00 in the noon, accused Hasan Ali, Islam, Pervez, Naved and Aslam/respondent No. 2 came to the house of Kurban with intention to kill him; Hasan Ali was armed with pistol, Aslam/respondent No.2 was armed with country made pistol, Islam was armed with sword, Naved was armed with balkati and pervez was armed with iron rod. All the accused attacked Kurban and his family members with intention to kill them, however, villagers gathered on the spot and, meanwhile, all the accused ran away from the spot. 3. It is nowhere stated in the F.I.R. as to whether Aslam/respondent No. 2 who is sought to be summoned as an additional accused has fired any shot. It is also not stated in the F.I.R. who has suffered fire arm injuries at the hands of respondent No. 2. It is true that F.I.R. is not encyclopedia of the incident, however. F.I.R. always gives broad idea about the incident. 4. Investigating Officer has recorded statements of Jabir and Noor Hasan under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, both of them have not stated as to whether any shot was fired by respondent No.2. Not only this, PW2 Jabir, while appearing in the witness box, has stated that Hasan Ali has fired shot from his gun whereby Kurban has suffered fire shot injuries. He has further stated that other accused also did marpeet with Kurban. It is important to mention herein that alleged fire arm being carried by respondent No. 2 was never recovered. 5. Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. He has further stated that other accused also did marpeet with Kurban. It is important to mention herein that alleged fire arm being carried by respondent No. 2 was never recovered. 5. Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 had occasioned to interpret Section 319 Cr.P.C. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra) has held as under:- “Degree of satisfaction for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be of more than a prima facie case as exercised at time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction to an extent that evidence, if not rebutted, may lead to conviction of person sought to be added as accused.” 6. In the present case, only one person has suffered fire arm injuries that too at the hands of Hasan Ali accused. There is no material to the effect that Aslam/respondent No. 2, sought to be added as an accused, has ever fired. The alleged fire arm carried by Aslam was never recovered. 7. In my considered opinion, the material available on the record if is not rebutted will not be sufficient to convict the person sought to be added as an accused. Therefore, I do not find any justification or ground to take contrary view to the view taken by the learned Trial Judge. 8. Consequently, revision fails and is hereby dismissed.