ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 401 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.' hereinafter) challenging the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.289/2016 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thalassery, arising from the judgment in C.C.No.420/2001 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur. The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in the above case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the concurrent verdicts under challenge and the points argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. 3. The parties in this revision petition will be referred hereafter as 'prosecution' and 'accused' for easy reference. 4. As per the judgment dated 29.11.2016 in C.C.No.420/2001, the learned Magistrate, after trying accused Nos.1 to 4 jointly, found that they were guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 427 and 452 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC' hereinafter) and accordingly, they were sentenced as under; In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a line of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) each for the offence punishable under sec. 326 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each for the offence punishable under sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each for the offence punishable under sec. 323 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) each for the offence punishable under sec. 427 r/w 34 of IPC Accused Nos.1 to 4 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Sec. 452 r/w 34 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, accused shall suffer Rigorous imprisonment for further period of 3 months each respectively. The sentence shall run concurrently. Set off is allowed against the period of detention if any undergone by them as under trial. Fine amount if realized shall be forfeited to the Government. 5000/- under Sec. 452 r/w 34 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, accused shall suffer Rigorous imprisonment for further period of 3 months each respectively. The sentence shall run concurrently. Set off is allowed against the period of detention if any undergone by them as under trial. Fine amount if realized shall be forfeited to the Government. The material object (MO1 to MO3) shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period as they are valueless. 5. Though appeal was preferred, the learned Appellate Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence, and now the accused persons are before this Court. On perusal of the records, it is seen that initially, accused Nos.1 to 3 were tried by examining PW1 to PW4. Adverting to the evidence given by them, additional 4th accused also was impleaded by invoking power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate opted the procedure of joint trial of accused Nos.1 to 4. Accordingly, PW1, PW2 and PW4 were recalled and examined again, as part of fresh trial against the 4th accused. Further, PW5 to PW8 were also examined. Accordingly, the evidence of prosecution is confined to that of PW1 to PW8, Exts.P1 to P4, and MO1 to MO5. On the side of the accused, DW1 examined and Exts.D1 to D10 contradictions also were marked. 6. The prosecution case is that on 25.01.2001 at 23.00 hrs the accused persons along with other identifiable persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at Karaperavur in Keezhallur Amsom and in furtherance of their common object to commit crime; trespassed upon the house, where PWI and family reside, bearing No.63/VII of Keezhallur Panchayath, with dangerous weapons; then, accused No.1 voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PWI by hitting with a wooden piece on his face, accused No.4 threw a rounded object and it hit on the nose of PW1, accused Nos.2 and 3 caused hurt to PW2 by beating with an iron rode on his head. In the same transaction other accused beat PW2 with hands. Further, the accused persons destroyed the door, window pane and caused damage to the tune of Rs. 2500/-. Thus the prosecution alleges that the accused committed the above offences. 7. In the same transaction other accused beat PW2 with hands. Further, the accused persons destroyed the door, window pane and caused damage to the tune of Rs. 2500/-. Thus the prosecution alleges that the accused committed the above offences. 7. While assailing the concurrent verdicts, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that in this matter, after examining PW1 to PW4, the learned Magistrate impleaded additional 4th accused by invoking power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and the same was assailed before this Court in Crl.M.C.No.1938/2013. As per the order dated 21.07.2014, this Court concurred the said finding and dismissed the Crl.M.C. observing that the trial as against the additional 4th accused should proceed afresh. 8. According to the learned counsel for the accused, in this matter, fresh trial was not conducted and therefore, the trial is vitiated. He has placed decision of the Apex Court reported in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab [ 2022 (7) KHC 593 ], where the Apex Court considered three questions as stated in paragraph 6 as under; I. Whether the Trial Court has the power under S.319 of the CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order? II. Whether the Trial Court has the power under S.319 of the CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing / pending, having been bifurcated from the main trial? III. What are the guidelines that the competent Court must follow while exercising power under S.319 CrPC? 9. While answering the queries, it was held as under ; For all the reasons stated above, we answer the questions referred as hereunder: I. Whether the Trial Court has the power under S.319 of Cr.P.C for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co -accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order? The power under S.319 of Cr.P.C is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. The power under S.319 of Cr.P.C is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable. II. Whether the Trial Court has the power under S.319 of the CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated from the main trial? The Trial Court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion. III. What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under S.319 Cr.P.C.? (i) If the competent Court finds evidence or if application under S.319 of CrPC is filed regarding involvement of any other person in committing the offence based on evidence recorded at any stage in the trial before passing of the order on acquittal or sentence, it shall pause the trial at that stage. (ii) The Court shall thereupon first decide the need or otherwise to summon the additional accused and pass orders thereon. (iii) If the decision of the Court is to exercise the power under S.319 of CrPC and summon the accused, such summoning order shall be passed before proceeding further with the trial in the main case. (ii) The Court shall thereupon first decide the need or otherwise to summon the additional accused and pass orders thereon. (iii) If the decision of the Court is to exercise the power under S.319 of CrPC and summon the accused, such summoning order shall be passed before proceeding further with the trial in the main case. (iv) If the summoning order of additional accused is passed, depending on the stage at which it is passed, the Court shall also apply its mind to the fact as to whether such summoned accused is to be tried along with the other accused or separately. (v) If the decision is for joint trial, the fresh trial shall be commenced only after securing the presence of the summoned accused. (vi) If the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried separately, on such order being made, there will be no impediment for the Court to continue and conclude the trial against the accused who were being proceeded with. (vii) If the proceeding paused as in (1) above is in a case where the accused who were tried are to be acquitted and the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried afresh separately, there will be no impediment to pass the judgment of acquittal in the main case. (viii) If the power is not invoked or exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is a split - up (bifurcated) case, the power under S.319 of CrPC can be invoked or exercised only if there is evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement of the additional accused to be summoned in the split up (bifurcated) trial. (ix) If, after arguments are heard and the case is reserved for judgment the occasion arises for the Court to invoke and exercise the power under S.319 of CrPC, the for the Court is to set it down for re–hearing. (x) On setting it down for re-hearing, the above laid down procedure to decide about summoning; holding of joint trial or otherwise shall be decided and proceeded with accordingly. (xi) Even in such a case, at that stage, if the decision is to summon additional accused and hold a joint trial the trial shall be conducted afresh and de novo proceedings be held. (xi) Even in such a case, at that stage, if the decision is to summon additional accused and hold a joint trial the trial shall be conducted afresh and de novo proceedings be held. (xii) If, in that circumstance, the decision is to hold a separate trial in case of the summoned accused as indicated earlier. (a) The main case may be decided by pronouncing the conviction and sentence and then proceed afresh against summoned accused. (b) In the case of acquittal the order shall be passed to that effect in the main case and then proceed afresh against summoned accused. 10. In paragraph 28 of the judgment, the Apex Court discussed the facts of this case to answer the questions and stated as under; In that view of the matter, if the Court finds from the evidence recorded in the process of trial that any other person is involved, such power to summon the accused under S.319 of CrPC can be exercised by passing an order to that effect before the sentence is imposed and the judgment is complete in all respects bringing the trial to a conclusion. While arriving at such conclusion what is also to be kept in view is the requirement of sub-section (4) to S.319 of CrPC. From the said provision it is clear that if the learned Sessions Judge exercises the power to summon the additional accused, the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses will have to be re-examined in the presence of the additional accused. In a case where the learned Sessions Judge exercises the power under S.319 of Cr.P.C., after recording evidence of the witnesses or after pronouncing the judgment of conviction but before sentence being imposed, the very same evidence which is available on record cannot be used against the newly added accused in view of S.319 of Cr.P.C. As against the accused who has been summoned subsequently a fresh trial is to be held. However, while considering the application under S.319 of Cr.P.C., if the decision by the learned Sessions Judge is to summon the additional accused before passing the judgment of conviction or on passing an order on sentence, the conclusion of the trial by pronouncing the judgment is required to be held and the application under S.319 of Cr.P.C. is required to be disposed of and only then the conclusion of the judgment, either to convict the other accused who were before the Court and to sentence them can be proceeded with. This is so since the power under S.319 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised only before the conclusion of the trial by passing the judgment of conviction and sentence. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that going by the narration in paragraph 3 of the appellate judgment, the appellate judge categorically outlined the history of the prosecution, referring that after impleading 4th accused also as an additional accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. PW1, PW2 and PW4, the crucial witnesses to support the prosecution were recalled and examined again as part of fresh trial against the 4th accused and continued the evidence by examining PW5 to PW8. Therefore, the procedure laid by the Apex Court has been complied in a stricto sensu and there is no anomaly in the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate to interfere with. It is also pointed out that if the decision is for joint trial after impleading additional accused, the fresh trial shall be commenced only after securing the presence of the summoned accused. 12. Reading the ratio of the decision in Sukhp Singh Khaira's case (supra), if, after impleading the additional accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, the court decides to go for a joint trial, a fresh trial shall be commenced only after securing the presence of the summoned accused. It is the settled law further that if the court decides to jointly try the additional accused along with the other accused, the trial against the additional accused should start afresh. In the instant case, it is well discernible that after adding the additional 4th accused, the learned Magistrate recalled PW1, PW2 and PW4, and trial against the additional 4th accused was started afresh and continued along with the other accused and thereafter, the verdict impugned was rendered. In the instant case, it is well discernible that after adding the additional 4th accused, the learned Magistrate recalled PW1, PW2 and PW4, and trial against the additional 4th accused was started afresh and continued along with the other accused and thereafter, the verdict impugned was rendered. The trial court and the appellate court also did not rely on the evidence of PW3, who could not be examined further as stated in the concurrent verdicts as against the additional 4th accused. Thus, it appears that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate while jointly trying the additional accused along with the other accused is perfectly in accordance with law and the same does not warrant any interference. 13. Coming to the merits of this case, here relying on the evidence mainly that of PW1, PW2 and PW4 supported by the medical evidence as that of PW6, the trial court as well as the appellate court found that the accused persons committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 427 and 452 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that, on merits also, the conviction and sentence warrant interference. Adverting to this argument, I have perused the impugned verdicts whereby the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW6 and other witnesses were dealt with in detail by the trial and appellate court. It is discernible that during examination of PW1, he fully supported the prosecution case and deposed that at 11.00 p.m. on 25.01.2001, the accused persons trespassed upon his house situated at Karaperavoor. He specifically pointed out that N.K.Sreenivasan, the 4th accused threw a round object against him and the same hit on his nose causing injury. He further deposed that Bhaskaran, the 1st accused hit with a rounded wooden piece on his nose with force and blood oozed therefrom, and thereby he sustained fracture on nose. Further, it was deposed by PW1 that accused No.2 beat Sunil Kumar (PW4) with an iron rod on his head and accused No.3 beat Sunil Kumar (PW4) with a wooden stick at his body. Further, accused No.2 hit the head of PW2 against the wall and pulled her chain (thali) and thereby she sustained contusion on her face and head. Further, it was deposed by PW1 that accused No.2 beat Sunil Kumar (PW4) with an iron rod on his head and accused No.3 beat Sunil Kumar (PW4) with a wooden stick at his body. Further, accused No.2 hit the head of PW2 against the wall and pulled her chain (thali) and thereby she sustained contusion on her face and head. Further, it was deposed by PW1 that the accused demolished the front door of the house, the door of the dining room and another door of a room. Further, they broke the window pane. PW1 deposed further that he was admitted at Indira Gandhi Hospital, Thalassery and treated thereof and Ext.P1, the First Information Statement given by PW1 was also marked through her. 14. PW2 also supported the evidence of PW1, and PW2 and PW4 supported the evidence of PW1. PW3 categorically given evidence as against accused Nos.1 to 3 supported by PW1, PW2 and PW4. 15. It is true that no independent witness was either cited or examined to prove the prosecution case. Even though, this contention was raised before the trial court and the appellate court, both courts did not find the same as an anomaly, particularly, taking note of the fact that occurrence was at 11.00 p.m. (just before midnight) happened at the house of PW1 to PW4. It is relevant to note that accused were also identified by the witnesses, who also identified the weapons used by each accused to beat them and the same got marked as MO1 to MO5. 16. In this case the evidence of PW6 is very crucial. PW6 is the doctor who examined PW1 at 12.15 a.m., after1.15 hours of occurrence, noticed 2 cm long incised wound on the tip of the nose and 2 cm long incised wound in the nutosal surface of the lower lip X-Ray of scull showed fracture on the anterior wall and the 2nd X-Ray showed fracture on septum of the nose. He noticed fracture of teeth 1, 2 and 3 in the upper right and left and 1 and 2 in the lower right and left. In his opinion, the injuries are grievous in nature. He noticed fracture of teeth 1, 2 and 3 in the upper right and left and 1 and 2 in the lower right and left. In his opinion, the injuries are grievous in nature. On the same day, he examined PW4 and he noticed incised wound 6 x 1 cm on the front of right side of the forehead and superficial abrasions, 5 x 6 ½ cm long on the lateral aspect of left upper arm and complaint of pain and muscle contusion in the left leg. In the opinion of PW6, the injuries noted on the body of PW4 is that of simple in nature. Doctor deposed that the possibility of the injury could be caused as alleged. 17. When examining the prosecution evidence, even though no independent witness/es either cited or examined, the injured witnesses, strongly supported the prosecution case by disclosing the overt acts with certainty and the said evidence in no way shaken during cross examination. In so far as absence of independent witness/es to the occurrence is concerned, the same is not at all fatal. The law doesn’t insist that every offence should be proved by independent witness/es. When a mob trespassed upon the house of an individual at 11.00 a.m. just before midnight, it is not fair to insist that such occurrence should be witnessed by independent witness/es. The law does not insist an independent witness for every occurrence and also law does not insist more number of witnesses for any occurrence. The one and only essential to prove an offence is that the allegation should be proved beyond reasonable doubts with the aid of wholly reliable evidence. Such wholly reliable evidence can be the sole evidence of an injured person or an aggrieved person, even without corroboration by any independent or additional witnesses. To put it otherwise, conviction is possible relying on the sole testimony of an injured or aggrieved witness/es, if the same is wholly reliable and law does not insist in plurality of witnesses as a criteria to prove the prosecution allegations. Thus it is held that in the instant case, the trial court rightly found commission of offences under Sections 323, 324, 326, 427 and 452 read with Section 34 of IPC by the accused on the basis of wholly reliable evidence. Thus it is held that in the instant case, the trial court rightly found commission of offences under Sections 323, 324, 326, 427 and 452 read with Section 34 of IPC by the accused on the basis of wholly reliable evidence. The appellate court also, on re-appreciation of evidence, correctly found that the trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. 18. As far as the sentence is concerned, the appellate court was not inclined to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court taking note of the seriousness of the offences, the manner in which it was done and the time of occurrence. Going by the sentence imposed by the trial court, the maximum sentence imposed was two years and payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial court, in fact, imposed one year and less than one year imprisonment for the other offences and ordered the sentence to run concurrently. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the 4th accused is a person aged 75 years at present (he was aged only 63 years during 2001, the time of occurrence), considering the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed, I do not think that any leniency in the matter of sentence is warranted in the instant case and therefore, the sentence also is only to be confirmed. 19. In view of the above, this revision fails and accordingly, is dismissed. The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the petitioners stand vacated with direction to the petitioners to surrender before the trial court within a period of two weeks to undergo the sentence. On failure to do so, the trial court is directed to execute the sentence as per law. Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the trial court for information and further steps.