STATE Vs. RAMU SHIDLING BANDGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under S. 48 CrPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Belgaum, recommending to reverse the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Athni and to direct him to issue process to, four persons, viz., (1) Pandit Shrimant Patil (2) Balappa Shrimant Patil (3) Keshav Shrimant Patil and (4) Kallappa Chougule, to answer a charge of murder and rioting.

(2.) The facts that have given rise to this reference are these: In respect of an incident that happened on 16-11-3965 at 2 P.M. in the land belonging to Kallappa Kadappa Desai, called 'Kamat Hola', on the complaint of Narayan Rajba Patil, a case: was registered in Crime No.80/65 against 19 persons including the four persons mentioned earlier for offences under Ss. 147, 148, 149 and 302 read with S.34 IPC. In respect of the same incident, on the complaint of Ramu Annappa Patil, another case was registered in Crime No.79/65 against 14 persons, including Narayan Rajba Patil for similar offences. After due investigation, charge sheets were filed in these two cases. In the charge sheet, the four persons mentioned above were; not included as accused persons, but instead some others were included and the final charge sheet disclosed 21 persons. It is unnecessary to consider the number of persons charge-sheeted in the other case. Crime No.79 was registered at 4 P.M. whereas Crime No 80 was registered at 5-30 P.M. by the Sub-Inspector of Police Athni. In these two cases there, were three deaths in all and a number of persons on both sides had been injured. At about 9 or 9-30 P.M. the Circle Inspector of Policy took up further investigation of these two cases and after due investigation, filed two, charge sheets on 10-1-1966.

(3.) On 17-2-1966, Narayan Rajba Patil filed the present application through his Advocate, alleging that the Circle Inspector of Police had not investigated into this case properly and that he had taken sides with the other party with the result he had omitted to include the persons mentioned above in the charge-sheet. He further alleged that he., at the earliestmoment, mentioned the names of these persons as persons who also committed the offences along with others and with a, view to help them, the Investigating Officer had created false evidence in their favour.