(Prayer: This Crl.RP is filed u/Sec. 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, praying to i) call for records in S.C.14/2024 pending on the file of the Honourable 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir. ii) set aside the order dated 05.02.2026 passed under Section 250 of BNSS by 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri Sc.14/2024, and discharge them of offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 302, 114, 109 r/w 149, IPC 1860.)

CAV ORDER

1. Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short "BNSS, 2023") against the order dated 5th February, 2026, passed in SC No.14 of 2024 by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Yadgir (for short "the trial Court").

2. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that on the basis of complaint filed by one Sivaganga Hosamani s/o Marilingappa Hosmani, Wadagera Police, registered case in Crime No.58 of 2023 against accused 1 to 12 for commission of offence under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 302, 114, 109 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against 3 accused 1 to 11 for commission of offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 302, 114, 109 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. After filing charge-sheet, case was registered in CC No.5263 of 2023 on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Shahapur. Since offences are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the court of Sessions and was registered as SC No.14 of 2024. Accused were enlarged on bail. Before framing of charges, application was filed on behalf of present petitioners who are accused No.4 and 5, under section 227 of CrPC read with Section 250 of BNSS, 2023 for discharge. The same came to be rejected by the trial Court by impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

3. Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners are innocent of alleged offences. The offences alleged by the respondent police are not made out from materials produced before them. It is submitted that the complaint is lodged on the following day of the alleged incident, but the complainant fails to give any explanation for the delay and hence it may be safely inferred that the de-facto complainant, after due deliberations, has 4 given improved version of the alleged incident, implicating the petitioners. The de-facto complainant had made specific allegations against one Manappa who was shown as accused No.11 in the First Information Report, but was later dropped by the respondent police upon the statement of de-facto complainant, which clearly shows that the names included in the complaint and the witness statements are false.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further submit that the petitioners were not in Yadgir District when the alleged incident took place and they were in Kalaburagi district pursuing their academics by staying in hostel. The accused No.1, on the alleged date was in Kalbuargi submitting his application for his Ph.D with Kalburagi University. Hence, the allegation against the petitioners does not hold water. The case of the respondent police is that the deceased was shifted to the United Hospital Kalburagi on 8th June 2023, after the alleged incident, but no explanation is given by the respondent-Police as to why the hospital had not registered the case as Medico-legal case when the injured was taken to Hospital with the history of stab injury. Hence, it is submitted that the very genesis of the case is doubtful. It is further submitted that the motive attributed to the petitioners is very slim and not supported by any credible 5 material. The witnesses are either interested or hearsay witnesses. At this stage, it looks very unnatural as to why the petitioners along with other accused tried to do away with the deceased. The land in question was never made part of any lis till the alleged date of incident and also it had nothing to do with the petitioners. Hence, the motive does not stand. As per the police, incident took place in village at 7:30 pm, but the respondent police have failed to produce any document to show that there were sufficient light for the de-facto complainant to witness and identify the petitioner and other accused. It is also submitted that there are no recoveries at the instance of petitioners. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the revision petition. To substantiate his argument, the learned Counsel have produced the true copy of educational qualification of the petitioners, provisional certificate of passing, Form of application for registration as a student for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D), the attendance certificate issued by Siddhartha Law College in respect of Siddappa B. Kalmani student of III year LL.B along with a covering letter and his identity card.

5. As against this, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1-State, would submit that the 6 trial Court has assigned proper reasons for rejecting the discharge application. Absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The accused may raise the grounds urged in this Revision Petition only after the full-fledged trial. Whether the petitioners were present at the time of commission of offence or not has to be examined only after the trial. Merely on the basis of attendance certificate issued by the concerned authority, at this stage, accused cannot be discharged, as there are prima facie material to constitute the offence alleged against the petitioners. On all these grounds, it is sought for dismissal of revision petition.

6. I have examined the materials place before this court. On the basis of complaint filed by Shivaganga Hosmani, Wadagera Police have registered case in Crime No.58 of 2023 against accused 1 to 12 for the offence punishable under aforestated Sections.

7. The present petitioners are Suresh B. Kalmani and Siddappa B. Kalmani, who are accused No.4 and 5 in the FIR. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted sheet against accused 1 to 11. In the charge-sheet, also, the present petitioners are shown as accused 4 and 5. At the time of filing 7 charge-sheet, the investigating officer has not submitted the charge-sheet against accused No.11-Manappa on the ground that during the investigation, the case is not proved against him. Hence, accused No.11 is given up from the charge-sheet. Though, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that de-facto complainant had made specific allegation against one Manppa who is accused No.11 in the FIR, but thereafter, the respondent-police have dropped his name from the FIR, which clearly shows that the names included in the complaint and the witness statement are concocted, the perusal of the materials placed before this court makes it clear that the investigating officer recorded the further statement of complainant Shivaganga Hosmani, in which he has stated that due to misrepresentation of facts, he has inserted the name of Manappa. He came to know that Manappa is working at Bengaluru for the past years and he did not participate in the alleged crime. Accordingly, investigating officer has not submitted charge-sheet against accused No.11.

8. Mere non-filing of case against accused No.11 is not a ground to discharge the present petitioners from the alleged commission of offence. Therefore, in this regard, argument 8 advanced on behalf of the revision petitioners cannot be accepted.

9. The alleged incident took place on 8th June 2023. Complaint was filed on 9th June 2023 at 9.00 am and FIR was submitted to the court on 9th June, 2023 at 10.00 pm. In this regard, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that there is delay of more than 24 hours in submitting the FIR to the court, which shows that, only after discussions and deliberations, the complainant has filed false case against these accused. At this stage, this argument cannot be accepted.

10. With regard to attendance certificate and eligibility certificate, provisional certificates, Form of application for registration as a student for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy pertaining to accused No.4-Suresh and the Attendance Certificate issued by Siddharth Law College in respect of accused No.5-Siddanna is concerned, on the basis of copies of attendance certificates, at this stage, without evidence, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the present petitioners were not present at that scene of commission of offence. I have examined the prosecution papers, statement of witnesses, inquest panchanama, seizure panchanama and other 9 materials placed by the concerned police. In Column 17 of the Charge-sheet, it is stated as under:







11. On careful examination of the entire material on record, I do not find any legal error in the impugned order, passed the learned sessions Judge. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Consequently, all pending IAs if any, shall stand disposed of.