JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that animosity was persisting between two groups involved in the incident, which took place on 13.7.2010 at around 9 AM. FIR was lodged by Balbir Singh on the same day at around 10.45 AM at the concerning police station against Ishwar Singh, Surjeet Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Malkeet Singh. All these accused persons are the close family members of Smt. Harvansh Kaur, W/o Surjeet Singh. Having noticed regarding lodging of the FIR, these accused persons also reached to the police station almost after 13-15 hours to lodge their FIR against their opponents Gurmej Singh, Balbir Singh, Amarjeet Singh (all sons of Baj Singh) and one Ramesh Singh, S/o Gurnam Singh. 2. The allegations against the revisionist Ramesh Singh was that he opened the fire from his 12 bore gun on Ishwar Singh and Malkeet Singh, however, only one pellet could touch Ishwar Singh. 3. It appears that before the FIR at the instance of Smt. Harvansh Kaur could be lodged in the intervening night of 13/14.7.2010 at 12.30 AM, the police took all these persons of Smt. Harvansh Kaur for medical examination. Ishwar Singh could be examined at 11.53 PM on that intervening night, wherein one punctured wound was noticed in the chest, 8 CM below the collor bone; besides there was redness in thin margins. However, no radiological test was got done. 4. Police concluded the FIR lodged by Balbir Singh into submission of charge-sheet, inter-alia, for the offence of Section 302 IPC against the persons named therein, while the FIR lodged by Smt. Harvansh Kaur could be culminated into submission of charge-sheet only against three accused persons for the offences under Section 307, 504 and 506 IPC, and Ramesh Singh, S/o Gurnam Singh was exonerated. 5. After levelling the charges, statement of Smt. Harvansh Karu was recorded. She narrated the complicity of Ramesh Singh in the same manner as was alleged by her in the FIR. On the same day, an application under Section 319 CrPC was moved and the learned Trial Judge was please enough to take cognizance in the matter and asked Ramesh Singh to face trial likewise other co-accused persons. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned order dated 6.9.2013, Ramesh Singh has preferred the instant revision before this Court. 7. On the same day, an application under Section 319 CrPC was moved and the learned Trial Judge was please enough to take cognizance in the matter and asked Ramesh Singh to face trial likewise other co-accused persons. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned order dated 6.9.2013, Ramesh Singh has preferred the instant revision before this Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Counsel of the complainant/respondent no. 2, both have relied upon a precedent rendered by a Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 . 8. Undoubtedly, Section 319 CrPC empowers the Trial Judge to summon any other accused person, if his complicity is reasonably appear to be involved. In paragraph 106 of the aforementioned judgment, the test laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is as under: “Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes un-rebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence” is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused.” The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.” 9. Therefore, it is amply clear that in order to exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC, a case more than prima facie, but short of satisfaction to an extent that evidence if goes un-rebutted would lead to conviction, must have been there. Therefore, it is amply clear that in order to exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC, a case more than prima facie, but short of satisfaction to an extent that evidence if goes un-rebutted would lead to conviction, must have been there. Now, on this anvil, if I just have a glance on the backdrop of the controversy in the light of animosity persisting between the parties, then I am of the opinion that simply chief-examination of Smt. Harvansh Kaur was not enough to exercise the powers under Section 319 CrPC, as has been done in the present case. Learned Trial Judge should have carefully scrutinized the medical evidence, which discloses one superficial pellet injury on the body of Ishwar Singh. Besides this, learned Trial Judge should also have meticulously perused the statements of many a witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer, wherein it has come that on the relevant date and time, Ramesh Singh was participating in a Panchayat meeting in a nearby Gurudwara. 10. Powers under Section 319 CrPC have been invoked and exercised by the learned Trial Judge even before Ishwar Singh, so-called injured witness, could be examined in the witness box, who was said to have been wounded by opening of the fire by Ramesh Singh. 11. In all, I feel that impugned order suffers with infirmity and is liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.