JUDGMENT: Rule. Rule made returnable forth with. Heard by consent. 1. By way of present application, the applicant challenges the order dated 5th October, 2006, vide which the application of the respondent No.1 for summoning the present applicants with one Chandrakant Vithal Puttewad as the accused person for being tried together with the accused Vasant Darade has been allowed. 2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present application are as under: . That, a crime came to be registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased (respondent No.2 herein ), vide crime No.31/2001. It is alleged in the said crime that on 28th of February, 2001, the daughter of the complainant namely Anita while returning from Shekapur, where she had gone to give her examination, alighted from the auto-rikshaw near "Hindu Smashan Bhumi", Kandhar. It is alleged that her brother Ravindra was accompanied by her. It is further alleged that thereafter, one girl namely Sindhu, on the pretext of giving guess questions for the next days paper, took her to the house of Puttewad, Assistant Teacher, who was staying in the bungalow of Professor Shri K.C. Badve in Vivekanand Colony. It is alleged that thereafter, the would be son-in-law of applicant No.1-Sambhaji, namely Shri Darade, Assistant Teacher and Shri Puttewad, on the instigation of the present applicant No.1-Sambhaji, committed rape on the said Anita and after killing her, put her dead body in the room of said Puttewad. It is further alleged that (1) Moti Kendre, (2) Sindhu, (3) Husband of Sindhu, (4) Puttewad (5) Darade and (6) Sambhaji Kendre, told the deceased that she should permit them to have sexual intercourse with her in return of helping her to pass the examination. It is further alleged that when she opposed, the aforesaid persons committed sexual intercourse with her turn by turn and killed her, so that anybody should not know about the incident. It is alleged that the aforesaid persons involved in the rape, are the office bearers of the society and the near relatives and that the backward class students in the said school, are subjected to harassment regularly, by the teachers in the said school. It is further alleged that injustice is being done to the backward class students, on the basis of caste. It is further alleged that injustice is being done to the backward class students, on the basis of caste. It is further alleged that as a part of this injustice, the murder of Anita Baswante was committed on the conspiracy and instigation of applicant No.1-Sambhaji. 3. It appears that though the investigation was initially conducted by Kandhar Police Station, due to the representations made by the respondent No.2 and various other organisations and due to the wide publicity given in the print media, investigation came to be transferred to the State CID and was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police (CID), Nanded. The Investigation Officer submitted a final charge-sheet in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kandhar on 23rd January, 2002. However, the said charge-sheet was filed only against one accused namely Vasant Dnyanoba Darade. 4. Insofar as the present applicants, are concerned, along with one Puttewad, a report was submitted by Investigation Officer that no evidence was found against the said persons, so as to file charge-sheet and, therefore, a prayer was made for passing order under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 20/03/2002. Accordingly, an order came to be passed releasing this accused along with Shri said Chandrakant Vithal Puttewad under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kandhar on 21st March 2002. 5. After commencement of the trial, the examination-in-chief of the respondent No.2 came to be recorded. At this stage, an application came to be filed by the respondent No.2, praying that the other persons, who were accused previously but released under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. be also added in the array of the accused. It was, therefore, prayed that those persons may also be called for facing the trial by invoking powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, vide order dated 29th September, 2005 vide order below Exh.36 in Special Case No.37/2003, allowed the said application and directed (1) Chandrakant Vithal Puttewad, (2) Sambhaji Nagoba Kendre, (3) Motiram Pandit Kendre and (4) Sindhubai Devidasrao Kendre, to be summoned as the accused persons for being tried together with the accused Vasant Darade. The said order came to be challenged before this court vide Criminal Application No.2718/2005 and Criminal Application No.2629/2005. The said order came to be challenged before this court vide Criminal Application No.2718/2005 and Criminal Application No.2629/2005. After finding that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge was only on the basis of the bare statement made by the complainant that these four persons were also involved in the crime in question and further that the powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. are required to be used sparingly and that there was no cogent evidence to come to a conclusion that any person not being the accused had committed an offence for which they could be tried, this court allowed the applications and quashed the impugned order dated 29th September, 2005. However, this court while allowing the applications made it clear that if during the course of the trial, the learned trial court comes to the conclusion that there exists sufficient evidence to invoke the powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. then the said order would not in any way be construed as coming in the way of the learned trial court for exercising the said powers. 6. Subsequent thereto, it appears that the evidence of certain prosecution witnesses has been recorded by the learned trial court. Thereafter, application came to be filed on behalf of the prosecution that there was sufficient evidence appearing against the aforesaid four accused persons and as such request for issuing summons to the aforesaid four persons, as accused for trying them together with the present accused Vasant Darade under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., was made. The learned trial court vide order dated 5th October, 2006, found that there was prima facie evidence against the aforesaid persons to come to a conclusion that they are required to be tried as an accused along with the other accused, who was already being tried. 7. Being aggrieved thereby the present application. 8. Shri N.N. Chittalange, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicants, submits that the powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. are to be used sparingly. He submits that only when the court comes to a reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected that the other person had committed an offence and, therefore, such other person also could be tried with the already arraigned accused, the powers under Section 319 could be invoked. He submits that only when the court comes to a reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected that the other person had committed an offence and, therefore, such other person also could be tried with the already arraigned accused, the powers under Section 319 could be invoked. He submits that merely because court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another persons in the offence, is not a ground, sufficient for invoking the powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. In support of this proposition, he relies upon a judgment of this court in the case of Rajesh @ Raja Nana Patil V/s State of Maharashtra & another reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2800. Shri N.N. Chittalange, learned counsel, for the applicants, further raised a preliminary objection. He submits that the present applicants along with the said Puttewad, were also made accused at the stage of investigation. However, after finding that no material could be collected in support of the said accused, charge-sheet was not filed against them. He, therefore, submits that when accused were given up during the course of investigation and not sent for trial, the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to implead them can not be entertained. He relies upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of S.Gopal & another V/s State of Karnataka reported in 2007 CRI.L.J.484. 9. As against this, Shri S.D. Kaldate, learned APP for the respondent No.1 and Shri G.G. Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, supports the impugned order. Shri G.G. Suryawnashi, learned counsel, submits that the learned trial court has found that there was sufficient evidence so as to proceed further with the accused, who are directed to be summoned by invoking powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that since the learned trial court has exercised the discretion vested in it, no interference is called for under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that the contention that only because the complainant is the father of the deceased and as such an interested witness and, therefore, the accused sought to be added could not be added, on the basis of his evidence, is not tenable in law. He further submits that the contention that only because the complainant is the father of the deceased and as such an interested witness and, therefore, the accused sought to be added could not be added, on the basis of his evidence, is not tenable in law. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lok Ram V/s Nihal Singh & another reported in 2129 2006 AIR SCW 2129, in support of this proposition. Shri Suryawanshi, further submits that the evidence as contemplated under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. would only mean, the examination-in-chief of the witness and not the cross-examination. He submits that if upon the examination-in-chief of the witnesses, it is found that there is sufficient evidence against the proposed accused, then an order under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. against the said person would be just and proper. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rakesh V/s State of Haryana reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2521, in support of this submission. 10. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants, that the present applicants have been dropped from the array of the accused while filing the charge-sheet, and as such the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. can not be invoked against them, is concerned, the Karnataka High Court in the case of S.Gopal & another V/s State of Karnataka (supra), has observed thus: . "Another reason as to why the learned trial Judge could not have entertained this application is that initially when the complaint was lodged indeed, the petitioners were arrayed as A-5 and A-6. After investigation, the investigating agency found that there is no material as against A-5 and A-6 and they deleted from the array of accused and not sent for trial. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge could not have entertained the application under S.319 of Cr.P.C. to implead A-5 and A-6." 11. However, the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Singh and another V/s State of Punjab and another reported in AIR 1979 SC 339 , has observed thus: . "9. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge could not have entertained the application under S.319 of Cr.P.C. to implead A-5 and A-6." 11. However, the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Singh and another V/s State of Punjab and another reported in AIR 1979 SC 339 , has observed thus: . "9. As regards the contention that the phrase ’any person not being the accused’ occurred in Sec. 319 excludes from its operation and accused who has been released by the police under Sec.169 of the Code and has been shown in column No.2 of the charge-sheet, the contention has merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Sec.319(1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court are included in the said expression." 12. The said view has been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Lok Ram V/s Nihal Singh & another Supra) (Supra). It is observed thus:. "11. On a careful reading of Sec.319 of the Code as well as the aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceeding on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but not charge-sheeted, can also be added to face the trial. The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge-sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence." 13. In view of the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that the view taken by the Karnataka High Court, is not a correct view. In view of the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that the view taken by the Karnataka High Court, is not a correct view. If the trial court upon the basis of the evidence adduced before it, is satisfied at any stage of the trial that the persons who were not arrayed as accused should face the trial, the court is competent to invoke powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the applicants in that regard, is not tenable. Insofar as the merits of the matter are concerned, the Apex Court in the catena of cases, has observed that the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Lok Ram V/s Nihal supra) Singh & another (supra), has observed thus: Power under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised by the Court suo motu or on an application by someone including accused already before it. If it is satisfied that any person other than accused had committed an offence he is to be tried together with the accused. The power is discretionary and such discretion must be exercised judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly, it is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier. The word ’evidence’ in Section 319 contemplates that evidence of witnesses given in Court." 15. In the case of Rajesh @ Raja Nana Patil V/s State of Maharashtra & another (supra) cited by Shri Chittalange, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Single Judge of this court, while considering a petition, challenging the non-invoking of powers under Section 319, took a view that the evidence collected did not answer the requirements of Section 319 and, therefore, the learned trial court had rightly rejected the application. 16. 16. Shri Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the 13 respondent No.2, is right in contending that the evidence which is found sufficient to come to the prima facie conclusion for invoking power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should not be disbelieved only on the ground that the evidence is of the complainant and as such of an interested witness. His contention is well supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lok Ram V/s Nihal Singh and another AND supra) Rakesh V/s State of Haryana ( referred supra). However, his submission that for invoking power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., the only evidence in the nature of examination-in-chief is to be taken into consideration and not the cross-examination, is concerned, in my view the said submission is not correct. 17. In the case of Lok Ram V/s Nihal Singh and another AND Rakesh V/s State of Haryana (supra), on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, the learned trial court had arraigned the three persons, as additional accused. In the Apex Court, it was argued that since the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, was not yet conducted and as such only her examination-in -chief, can not be said to be evidence. Referring to Section 3 of the Evidence Act, the Apex court 14 held that once the Sessions Court records the statement of the witnesses it would be a part of the evidence. It is thus clear that an action under Section 319 could also be initiated on the basis of the examination-in-chief which would be "evidence" as contemplated under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. However, if an examination-in chief, so also the cross-examination of the witness is recorded, his entire examination -in -chief and cross-examination will have to be construed as an ’evidence". There is nothing in the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, which restricts the cross-examination out of consideration while dealing with an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 18. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it will have to be considered as to whether there exists sufficient evidence to prima believe that the present applicants have committed the offence for which they could be tried together, with the accused who is already undergoing a trial. The prosecution in all examined eight witnesses, they are as under: "P.W.1 (52) Nivrutti Baswante-Father. P.W.2 (62) Ravindra Baswante-Brother. The prosecution in all examined eight witnesses, they are as under: "P.W.1 (52) Nivrutti Baswante-Father. P.W.2 (62) Ravindra Baswante-Brother. P.W.3 (73) Malharrao Waghmare-Relative/Maternal Uncle. P.W.4 (82) Gorakh Kamble-Seizure Panch. P.W.5 (87) Gajanan Basatwar-Spot Panch. P.W.6 (92) Raghunath Ghodaskar- Inquest Panch. P.W.7 (97) Kamlakar Badwe- Room Owner. P.W.8 (102) Sk.Yousus Sk.Raje-Seizure Panch." 19. Shri S.D.Kaldate, learned APP, was directed to take instructions, as to whether any other witness has been proposed to be examined by the prosecution, in addition to these witnesses. On instructions from the Investigating Officer, the learned APP, has made a statement that apart from these witnesses, the prosecution propose to examine only Investigating Officer. 20. Insofar as evidence of P.W.1, the complainant who is father of the deceased is concerned, on the relevant date i.e.20th February, 2001, he was attached to C.I.D. Office at Osmanabad. After receipt of the information from his son that deceased had not returned home, he had started at about 12.30 hours from Osmanabad and reached Kandhar at around 05.30 a.m. on 1st of February, 2001. He states that he came to know that his daughter was murdered in the room of Puttewad Sir. Rests of the evidence, is as to what is narrated to him by his son Ravindra. However, an allegation has been made by him that one Vasant Darade, Motiram Kendre and Chandrakant Puttewad had committed rape on deceased Anita one after another in the room of Puttewad Sir and thereafter murdered daughter-Anita, with an intention that the incident of the rape should not be disclosed. He has further alleged that the above three persons committed rape on deceased Anita at the instigation of Sambhaji Kendre, who was the Sanstha Chalak of the school and junior college, in which his daughter was studying. He further stated that Sambhaji Kendre was, would be father in law of accused Darade. 21. The most material piece of evidence would be that of Ravindra, the brother of the deceased. He has stated that in the month of February, 2001, his deceased sister Anita and he himself and his mother had come to Kandhar, as examination of Anita was to begin. He stated that examination centre was at Shekhapur. He states that deceased used to be taken to Shekhapur from Kandhar, some times on motorcycle and some times by Autorikshaw. 22. He stated that examination centre was at Shekhapur. He states that deceased used to be taken to Shekhapur from Kandhar, some times on motorcycle and some times by Autorikshaw. 22. It is alleged that, on 28/02/2001 deceased Anita was to appear for the examination of her science subject, which was to be held at about 11.00 a.m. and was to go on upto 01.00 p.m. On that day, they had gone to Shekapur by an auto-rickshaw. After the examination was over, they returned back to Kandhar by an auto-rickshwa. At Kandhar, they alighted from the auto-rickshaw near Hindu Cremation ground. When they got down, at Kandhar from the auto-rickshaw, at that time, the friend of Anita namely Sindhu Kendre called deceased Anita and told her that Darade Sir will be giving the guess paper for tomorrow’s subject and so he has called her to room. Anita told that she does not know the room of Darade Sir. Thereupon, Sindhu told her that Darade Sir is sitting in the room of Puttewad Sir, and that she knows the said room. When he told Sindhu and deceased Anita that he would also accompany them to go to the room of Puttewad Sir, Sindhu told that giving the guess paper is a confidential matter and it is a matter of theft and the guess paper will not be given to them in his presence, and so she told Ravindra that he should not accompany them. There-upon, Ravindra told them that they should take the guess paper and come home, and by that time he was to go to Nanded for obtaining Gas Cylinder. 23. Accordingly, deceased Anita and her friend Sindhu went towards the room of Puttewad Sir and Ravindra then went away to Nanded. In the evening at about 6 p.m., he returned from Nanded with gas cylinder and went home. His mother inquired from him as to why deceased Anita had not come home after examination, to which he told her that deceased Anita and her friend Sindhu had gone to Darade Sir for bringing a guess-paper. Thereafter, he himself, his mother went to the house of his uncle by name Malharrao Waghmare. He told his uncle that deceased Anita had not returned home after she returned back from the examination. Thereafter, he himself, his mother went to the house of his uncle by name Malharrao Waghmare. He told his uncle that deceased Anita had not returned home after she returned back from the examination. There-upon, he himself, his cousin (Mavas-Bhau) brother namely Balaji Waghmare, Sudhakar Waghmare, Vilas Waghmare went to the room of Darade Sir. They saw that the room of Darade Sir was locked. So, they came back to the house of his uncle Malharrao Waghmare and told him that the room of Darade Sir was locked. 24. He states that thereafter Malharrao Waghmare telephoned at Shekapur to Sambhaji Kendre who was the President of Mahatma Phule Uchya Madhyamic Shikshan Sanstha, informing him that the deceased Anita had gone to the room of Darade Sir for getting guess paper and that she had not returned back and further told him that he should come at Kandhar and help us. He further states that accordingly, Sambhaji Kendre came to Kandhar, in the house of Malharrao Waghmare. He told his uncle Malharrao Waghmare that things have gone wrong in the house of Puttewad Sir, so they should go to the room of Puttewad Sir and find out. He states that thereafter, he went to the police station and thereafter he came to know that the murder of deceased Anita was committed in Abhinav Nagar, Kandhar, in the room of Puttewad Sir. He further states that when they went to the room of Puttewad Sir, the dead body of the deceased Anita was not found in the said room. 25. In paragraph No.6 of deposition of Ravindra, he states thus:. "When we came back to Malhar nagar, Balaji Bhujangrao Kamble met us at that place and he told us that he had seen the accused Vasant Darade, Puttewad Sir and Moti Kendre in the room of Puttewad Sir in the afternoon." 26. His rest of the examination-in-chief is regarding the post-mortem of deceased Anita. Thereafter, her body being taken away. In his examination-in-chief, he also states regarding the commotion that had taken place at the time of funeral and the Lathi charge on the various persons. 27. His rest of the examination-in-chief is regarding the post-mortem of deceased Anita. Thereafter, her body being taken away. In his examination-in-chief, he also states regarding the commotion that had taken place at the time of funeral and the Lathi charge on the various persons. 27. It is to be noted that the part of his statement in cross-examination regarding Balaji Kamble meeting him and telling him that he had seen the accused Vasant Darade, Puttewad Sir, and Moti Kendre in the room of Puttewad Sir in the afternoon is in improvement. He states that he had stated before the police the above facts, when his statement was recorded by the investigating agency but why the above facts do not come in his statement, he can not say. 28. The statement of Malharrao Jalbaji Waghmare, maternal uncle of the deceased is also to the same effect after he was informed by Ravindra about the incident. It is to be noted that in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was the worker of congress party. He was the Sarpanch of village Mangal-Sangvi and was Sabhapati of Panchayat Samiti, Kandhar. He also admits that the applicant No.1 herein Sambhaji Nagoba Kendre was the leader of Farmers Workers Party and now he is the leader of congress party. In his cross-examination he has further stated that though his statement were recorded on various dates, he had not stated anything about the accused Sambhaji Kendre between 28/02/2001 to 09/03/2001. He has further admitted that on 21 01/03/2001 criminal case was registered against 19 persons of their community, alleging that they assaulted the police officer. He has further stated that he had no talk with Lecturer Shri Badve, the landlord of Puttewad Sir, between 01/03/2001 to 09/03/2001. 29. P.W.4-Gorakh Kerba Kamble, is witness of seizure panchanama. He has been declared hostile. P.W. 5-Gajanan Radhakishan Basatwar, is a witness of spot panchanama, who deposed regarding seizure of certain articles like Chemistry textbook, hall-ticket, writing pad, pair of chappals, one chocklatee purse, one goggle etc. P.W.6 -Raghunath Sambhaji Ghodajkar, is a panch on inquest panchanama. P.W.7 -Kamlakar Chintamani Badwe, who is a landlord of said Puttewad. 30. The relevant part of the deposition of Shri Kamlakar Badwe, is as under: . "I got up at about 4.30 p.m. and had a tea. Thereafter, I watered the plants. P.W.6 -Raghunath Sambhaji Ghodajkar, is a panch on inquest panchanama. P.W.7 -Kamlakar Chintamani Badwe, who is a landlord of said Puttewad. 30. The relevant part of the deposition of Shri Kamlakar Badwe, is as under: . "I got up at about 4.30 p.m. and had a tea. Thereafter, I watered the plants. At about 7 p.m., I saw the news bulletin of ’E’ TV. Thereafter, I was staling around in my premises. At that time, the door of room of Puttewad was ajar and light was on in his room. I called out to him to see whether he was there or not. But there was no reply. I again called out him, but again there was no reply. I then saw from the window inside the room and saw that one girl was lying in sleeping condition and she was having bed sheet on her person till the neck. I felt 22 suspicion. So, I opened the pushed the door of the room. As I pushed the door, I felt a foul like smell. I then informed police from my house on a telephone., about this. Police came there within 15 to 20 minutes. I showed the said fact to the police. The police removed the dead body of the girl from the said room at about 11 to 11.15 p.m. Puttewad was serving at Shekapur as a teacher of primary school. I was not acquainted with Vasant Darade and I had not met him prior to incident. I was acquainted with Vasant Darade prior to the incident only by face, as he used to come to the room of Mr. Puttewad. Subsequently, I came to know that he was Vasant Darade. The accused sitting before the court is the same Vasant Darade., who used to come to the room of Mr. Puttewad." 31. It can thus be seen that this evidence narrates about the events that have taken place after he has noticed the dead body. Insofar as P.W. 8-Sk.Yousuf Sk.Raje, is concerned, he is also a witness of seizure panchanama and he has also turned hostile. 32. It could thus be seen that insofar as applicant No.1 is concerned, following evidence could be said to be against him. Insofar as P.W. 8-Sk.Yousuf Sk.Raje, is concerned, he is also a witness of seizure panchanama and he has also turned hostile. 32. It could thus be seen that insofar as applicant No.1 is concerned, following evidence could be said to be against him. The statement made by P.W.1-complainant in his deposition that Vasant Darade, Moti Kendre and Chandrakant Puttewad had committed rape on his daughter at the instigation of the applicant No.1-Sambhaji Kendre, who was the Sanstha Chalak. The evidence of P.W.2 Ravindra and P.W.3 -Malharrao Waghmare, would reveal that after they found that the deceased Anita was not traceable, they telephoned the applicant No.1-Sambhaji Kendre and informed him that the deceased Anita had gone to the room of Darade Sir for getting guess paper and that she had not returned back and further told that he should come at Kandhar and help them. According to both of them, the applicant No.1-Sambhaji Kendre, came to Kandhar to the house of Malharrao Waghmare. It is further stated that Sambhaji Kendre told the uncle-Malharrao that things have gone wrong in the house of Shri Puttewad Sir and, therefore, they should go to the room of Puttewad Sir. However, it could be seen from the evidence of Malharrao that till 9th of March, 2001, he does not state anything about applicant No.1-Sambhaji Kendre. He has further admitted in his cross-examination that till 9th March, 2001, he had not mentioned the name of Sambhaji Kendre to anyone. Apart from this, there is no evidence against said applicant No.1-Sambhaji Kendre. It is further to be noted that P.W.3-Malharrao has admitted that both, he himself, as well as the applicant No.1-Sambhaji Kendre, belong to political parties. The applicant No.1, previously belonged to other political party and had joined the Congress Party. It has also come in the evidence of the various witnesses namely P.W.1, 2 and 3 that after the incident had taken place, there was a riot like situation at Kandhar and there was almost communal riot between the Matang community, which is a Scheduled Caste and the other communities. It is further to be noted that a crime also came to be registered against various leaders of Matang community for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. False implication of the applicant No.1-Sambhaji Kendre, in the background of the so called evidence against him, can not be ruled out. 33. It is further to be noted that a crime also came to be registered against various leaders of Matang community for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. False implication of the applicant No.1-Sambhaji Kendre, in the background of the so called evidence against him, can not be ruled out. 33. Insofar as the applicant No.2-Motiram Panditrao Kendre is concerned, apart from a bare statement by complainant in his deposition that the said applicant No.2-Motiram Kendre had also committed a rape on his daughter, the only evidence is of P.W.2- Ravindra. He states that when they came back to Malharnagar, Balaji Bhujangrao Kamble met them at that place and he told them that he had seen the accused Vasant Darade, Puttewad Sir and Moti Kendre in the room of Puttewad Sir in the afternoon. However, it is to be noted that though more than half a dozen statements of the said witness have been recorded, he had no where stated about the said Balaji Kamble, telling him about the same. He has deposed for the first time about the same, in the court. It is further to be noted that the said Balaji Kamble has also not been examined by the prosecution. Apart from this, there is no evidence as against the said accused. In that view of the matter, I find that there is no material on record to prima facie and reasonably believe that these two persons had committed an offence and that for such offence, these two persons could be tried along with the accused, already being tried. 34. Insofar as applicant No.3-Smt.Sindhu Devidas Kendre, is concerned, the P.W.2-Ravindra has clearly stated that after they alighted from the auto-rickshaw, at Kandhar, near Hindu Cremation ground, one friend of his sister namely Sindhu Kendre called his deceased sister Anita and told that Darade Sir will be giving the guess-paper and he had called you to room. He further states that Anita, told Sindhu that she does not know the room of Darade Sir. Thereupon, Sindhu told her that Darade Sir is sitting in the room of Puttewad Sir and that she knows the said room. He has further clearly stated that thereafter Anita and Sindhu went towards the room of Puttewad Sir and he went to Nanded. His version to this effect in the cross-examination has also been unshattered. Thereupon, Sindhu told her that Darade Sir is sitting in the room of Puttewad Sir and that she knows the said room. He has further clearly stated that thereafter Anita and Sindhu went towards the room of Puttewad Sir and he went to Nanded. His version to this effect in the cross-examination has also been unshattered. Therefore, it can be seen that there is evidence on record to show that applicant No.3-Sindhu Devidas Kendre, told Anita that Darade Sir was giving guess paper for tomorrows subject and that the said Darade Sir was at the room of Puttewad Sir and that she knew the room. It has further come in the evidence that, thereafter, Anita along with Sindhu went towards the room of Puttewad Sir. On the same evening, the dead body of the deceased Anita was found. Therefore, insofar as the applicant No.3-Sindhu is concerned, I find that there is sufficient material on record, so as to prima facie come to the conclusion that she is involved in the crime in question. In that view of the matter, I find that no case is made out for interference with the order passed by the learned trial court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, insofar as the applicant No.3-Sindhu Devidas Kendre, is concerned. 35. The application, therefore, is partly allowed. The impugned order, insofar as it relates to the applicant No.1- Sambhaji Nagoba Kendre and applicant no.2-Motiram Panditrao Kendre, is quashed and set aside. 36. The application of the applicant No.3-Smt. Sindhu Devidas Kendre, stands dismissed. . Rule is made partly absolute in the above said terms.