JUDGMENT Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J.:- Acquittal of Naresh and Sanjay accused, respondents No.2 and 3, respectively, herein, stands challenged by complainant Rajender Singh by filing the present application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. 2. Both, Naresh and Sanjay, alongwith Monu @ Birpal, Manohar, Bhola @ Vinod, Sonu @ Satender and Deva @ Devender were tried for committing offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 307, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Sonu @ Satender and Deva @ Devender were also charged for committing offences punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Vide judgment dated 20.12.2016, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad acquitted Naresh and Sanjay accused of the charges against them. However, their five co-accused were convicted for the various offences for which they stood charged. 3. According to the prosecution, complainant Rajender Singh and his brothers Bijender and Gajender were residents of village Lehdoli but living separately. The complainant and his two sons Vijay and Bhagat Singh, besides his father Hari Chand lived together. The houses of Deva @ Devender and others were situated near the houses of the complainant party. In front of their houses, there was land of well belonging to the Panchayat. On 28.6.2013, the family members of Deva @ Devender placed bundles of hay in front of their house on the well. On 29.6.2013, they put fencing around the Panchayat land and also in front of their house. The complainant party asked the accused not to do so but the accused threatened them. On 30.6.2013, the complainant party was working in their fields where they were informed that Deva @ Devender, Manohar, Bhola @ Vinod and Monu @ Birpal were giving beatings to Bijender and also encroaching upon the land in front of their house. On hearing this, complainant party reached their house and found that Deva @ Devender and Monu @ Birpal carrying countrymade pistols, Bhola @ Vinod and Sonu @ Satinder carrying swords, Manohar, Satto wife of Manohar, Bimla wife of Birpal, Mamta wife of Sonu, Devi Anuradha wife of Deva carrying lathies, dandas and bhallas accompanied by two outsiders, who were carrying a countrymade pistol and a sword attacked them. Sonu @ Satinder gave a sword blow on the left hand and chest of the complainant. Sonu @ Satinder gave a sword blow on the left hand and chest of the complainant. Monu @ Birpal fired at Vijay whereas Deva @ Devender fired at Bijender. They were also attacked by other accused persons with lathies, swords and bhallas. Lateron, Vijay died due to the injuries. 4. During the investigation of the case, the complainant party named Naresh and Sanjay to be the ones who were unidentified persons and were carrying a countrymade pistol and a sword at the time of the occurrence. However, at the conclusion of the investigation both Naresh and Sanjay were found innocent and, accordingly, they were not challaned. The challan was presented only against five other named accused. Subsequently, vide order dated 25.8.2014, learned trial Court, on the basis of the application submitted by the Public Prosecutor under Section 319 Cr.P.C., summoned Naresh and Sanjay as additional accused. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and on going through the impugned judgment, this Court finds that in the initial version disclosed to the police the complainant had stated that apart from the five named accused there were two outsiders whose names could be disclosed by his son Bhagat Singh. They were carrying a countrymade pistol and a sword. However, no specific role of causing an injury to the complainant party was attributed to them. Further, while in the witness box, the complainant stated that Naresh was having a sword whereas Sanjay had a countrymade pistol which he fired towards him but he was not hit. He also stated that he had never seen Naresh and Sanjay before the incident. Even no test identification parade was held qua these two unknown accused. PW2 Bijender stated in his examination-in-chief that Naresh had given a sword blow to him on his right hand but he nowhere stated that Sanjay had fired a shot at his brother Rajender PW1, which did not hit him. PW1 Rajender also did not state that Naresh accused gave a sword blow to PW2 Bijender. PW4 Gajender, who was another eye-witness of the occurrence simply deposed that Sanjay was having a countrymade pistol whereas Naresh was having a sword but he did not state that Sanjay and Naresh caused any injury to anyone out of the complainant party. PW1 Rajender also did not state that Naresh accused gave a sword blow to PW2 Bijender. PW4 Gajender, who was another eye-witness of the occurrence simply deposed that Sanjay was having a countrymade pistol whereas Naresh was having a sword but he did not state that Sanjay and Naresh caused any injury to anyone out of the complainant party. PW14 Prabhu Dayal, who was the Investigating Officer admitted in his crossexamination that he had recorded the statement of Sat Parkash, Sarpanch and another villager in the hospital at the time of inquest proceedings and those persons did not mention about the involvement of any outsider in the occurrence. He also admitted that names of Sanjay and Naresh did not appear in any of the disclosure statements of the other accused persons. He also admitted that in the verification and investigation of ACP Dinesh Kumar, Sanjay and Naresh were found innocent. 6. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court to the extent of acquitting Naresh and Sanjay accused of the charges against them. 7. The application is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.