IMPORTANT POINT
When an approach is made to Court on the ground of threat, it is duty of trial Court to see that witnesses have to be protected

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J.—This appeal is filed under Section 341 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in SC No.50/2017 dated 9.1.2019 on the application filed by CW-19 through prosecution under Section 195-A of Cr.P.C. rejecting the same and praying this Court to set-aside the order and direct the Court of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad to hold the enquiry on the said application and issue any other order or direction which this Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts of the case are, in nutshell, charge sheet is filed against respondent Nos.5 to 10 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 302, 120-B and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC alleging that they have committed the murder of one Yogeshgouda Goudar and charges has been framed and trial is commenced. An application is filed under Section 195-A of Cr.P.C. requesting the Court below to register the complaint and FIR and refer to the Magistrate for investigation against the police officers i.e. Tulajappa Sulfi Dy.S.P., IG Office, Belagavi and Chandrashekhar, Dy.S.P. Dharwad and Ex-Minister, Vinay Kulkarni, who threatened the witnesses to give evidence favouring the accused and those persons have been arrayed as respondents in this appeal as Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and after hearing, the said application came to be dismissed vide order dated 9.1.2019. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the said application, present appeal is filed.

3. The appellant who is CW-19 is contended that respondent No.2 who was Ex-MLA from Dharwad Rural Constituency and also Ex-Minister of Mines and Geology, Government of Karnataka and he was also the in-charge Minister of Dharwad District. The deceased Yogeshgouda Goudar and Mr. Vinay Kulkarni were arch political rivals and their rivalry escalated to personal level and there was an incident of animosity and a letter was received mentioning that name of respondent No.2 that he was murdered the brother of the deceased Yogeshgouda Goudar just two days prior to committing the murder of Yogeshgouda Goudar and the deceased neglected the same and further it is contended that the real culprit has been shielded by the police and sham investigation was conducted and respondent Nos.3 and 4 were hand in glove with respondent No.2 and made all efforts to tamper the prosecution witnesses in order to help the accused persons and so also several representations are made against these persons to the Government, Home Minister, Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court and higher officers of the police department including SP, DG and IGP and no decision has been taken and hence, the writ petition is filed before this Court and further contended that the earlier application is filed before the very same Court under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. stating that no fair investigation was conducted in the case and also regarding threatening of the witnesses, but the Court has rejected the said application without considering the affidavit filed by the applicant. Therefore, present appellant has constrained to file an application under Section 195-A of Cr.P.C. and the accused persons used come to Court with huge number of his followers which creating fearful environment in the Court premises and the witness who comes to the Court cannot give the evidence in the case in such fearful environment. The counsel for the appellant has orally raised the complaint before the Sessions Court, but the Sessions Court has not taken any action, hence, the appellant has constrained to file a memo along with photograph and video with the sealed cover. But very surprisingly, the Court has not made any order or not taken any action on the said memo filed by the appellant and if this matter proceeded by taking evidence of witnesses, it will violate the right of fair investigation and enquiry granted to the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The other contention is that the C