When the sole accused being acquitted after facing trial, summoning two more accused persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C for facing trial will not serve any purpose of justice and that also goes to show that the evidence before the learned trial court was not of such nature, on the basis of which the accused persons/revisionist could be convicted. Considering the view expressed by Supreme Court in "Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab , 2014(3) SCC 92" , I do not find that by the impugned order the learned trial court found sufficient evidence on the basis of which the conviction could be recorded. For summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C, it is incumbent for the learned trial court to give finding that the evidence is of such nature that it will lead conviction of the person who have been summoned. When the main accused person had been acquitted after trial, there appears to be no possibility of ensuring conviction of these two accused persons. No purpose is going to be served if the impugned order is permitted to continue. Finding of the trial court in respect of alleged criminal incident has been to the effect that there was no inquest report prepared nor there was medical
