Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Syed Dadafeer @ Jangli on 18 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB
CRL.A No. 933/2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.933/2018
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HULIYARU POLICE STATION
REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-01 ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP.)
AND:
1. SYED DADAFEER @ JANGLI
S/O SYED MADAR SAB
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
Digitally signed R/OF SHANKARAPURA EXTENSION
by DEVIKA M HULIYAARU
Location: HIGH CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. GAYATRAMMA
W/O KUMARA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/OF SHANKARAPURA BADAVANE
HULIYAR TOWN, C.N. HALLI TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI N.S. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB
CRL.A No. 933/2018
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER
DATED 24.11.2017 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.173/2016 ON THE FILE OF
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR TH EOFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366-A AND 506 OF IPC AND
SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 3(2)(v)(va) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-State and also learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal passed in Special Case No.173/2016 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru praying this Court to set aside the judgment of acquittal and convict the accused for the charges levelled against him and sentence him accordingly. -3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB CRL.A No. 933/2018 HC-KAR
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.
4. The factual matrix of case of prosecution before the trial Court is that on 09.04.2016 at about 08.30 p.m. when PW.3 went to attend nature call, she did not return home. The first informant along with her husband searched in the surrounding area and did not trace her, but at around 02:00 a.m. she was found along with the accused at a distance of 300 meters from her house. On enquiry she revealed that, when she went out to attend nature call, she was forcibly taken by the accused without her consent and by using criminal force, subjected her for sexual act and also threatened her that he is going to take away the life of her parents. When the accused was found by the parents of the victim, he ran away from the spot.
5. Based on the complaint, case was registered in Crime No.31/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 366A and 506 of IPC, Section 4,6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') and Sections -4- NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB CRL.A No. 933/2018 HC-KAR 3(2)(v)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short 'SC & ST (PoA) Act'].
6. The police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Hence, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13, got marked documents Exs.P1 to P10 and MOs.1 to 10.
7. The trial Judge having considered both oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused on the ground that the date of birth is not proved and the medical evidence is contrary to the case of the prosecution. Victim girl who has been examined as PW.3 before the trial Court did not identify the accused and also she categorically says that she could not identify the accused since there was darkness. Even in her statement under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (for short Cr.P.C), which is marked as Ex.P5 she has not identified the accused. The trial Court acquitted the accused based on the report of FSL which is also negative since no seminal stains are recovered from the victim's clothes as well as the clothes of the accused which were seized. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB CRL.A No. 933/2018 HC-KAR
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the State would submit that the evidence of PW.3 is very clear with regard to the incident is concerned. She categorically pointed out the role of the accused in Ex.P5-164 statement, when the same was recorded before the learned Magistrate with regard to the act of the accused. The medical evidence and the evidence of doctor/PW.8 are also very clear. PW.8 deposes before the Court that though there was no injury, found reddishness, but hymen was not intact and hence, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2/victim would submit that, the trial Court did not even discuss anything about invoking of special enactment and the evidence available before the Court is very clear that though the father belongs to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and mother belongs to the Lingayath community, nothing is discussed in the evidence while acquitting the accused in order to invoke the offence of Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC & ST (PoA) Act.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB CRL.A No. 933/2018 HC-KAR
10. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the accused would vehemently contend that, in the chief evidence itself PW.1 did not identify the accused and also learned Counsel would submit that no suggestion was made in the evidence of PW.1 that it was the accused who committed the offence. Further learned Counsel brought to notice of this Court the clear admission on the part of PW.3 that due to darkness she could not identify the accused and also not aware of who committed the said sexual act. Learned Counsel also brought to notice of this Court the FSL report which shows that seminal stains are not detected. Trial Court taking note of the said fact in detail discussed the material available on record and rightly acquitted the accused and the same does not require any interference. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused would also submit that when the Court comes to the conclusion that accused has not committed any offence, question of invoking the offence under Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC & ST (PoA) Act does not arise and there is no substantive piece of evidence before the Court to that effect also.
11. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for accused and also learned Counsel appearing for respondent -7- NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB CRL.A No. 933/2018 HC-KAR Nos.1 and 2 and on re-examination of materials available on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:
" i. Whether the trial Court committed error in acquitting the accused while coming to the conclusion that prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt?
ii. What order?
12. It is the case of the prosecution that the incident has taken place on 09.04.2016/10.04.2016 in the midnight. It is also the case of the prosecution that when PW.3/victim went to attend nature call, at that time forcefully the accused took the victim and subjected her for sexual act and found the accused as well as PW.3 at around 02.00 a.m. when parents of the victim were searching her and at that time accused ran away from the place.
13. Having perused the material available on record, the prosecution mainly relies upon Ex.P9 which is in respect of the admission to the 7th standard and not produced the -8- NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB CRL.A No. 933/2018 HC-KAR certificate of admission of the school first attended by the victim before the Court. In view of Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and Rules, the same is not proved in accordance with law.
14. It is also important to note that, having considered the evidence of PW.3/victim though she deposes before the Court that it was the accused who committed the offence and also in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C as per Ex.P5, she has stated that accused only committed the same. But in the cross examination of PW.3/victim she categorically admits that due to darkness in the night she was unable to identify the accused and this admission on the part of PW.3 takes away the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that even in chief evidence she did not identify the accused. On the very next day, she was subjected to medical examination and the clothes of victim as well as accused were sent to the FSL. The FSL report in respect of both the clothes is negative. The doctor who was examined as PW8 before the Court though says that hymen was not intact, he did not found any external injuries and only found reddishness in the private part. Hence, accused -9- NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB CRL.A No. 933/2018 HC-KAR cannot be convicted only on the ground that hymen was not intact.
15. Since PW.3/victim girl has not identified the accused before the Court in the chief-examination as well as in the cross-examination, the same goes to the very root of the case of the prosecution. When the medical evidence and the FSL evidence are also contrary to the case of the prosecution, question of convicting the accused does not arise.
16. No doubt it is settled law that the evidence of PW.3/victim girl is similar to that of injured witness, but in the case on hand, the evidence of PW.3 does not inspire confidence to the Court as she gives contrary versions to the case of the prosecution and hence, we do not find any ground to come to the conclusion that accused only committed the offence.
17. Apart from that, there is an admission in the cross- examination of PW.1 herself with regard to enmity between the family of the accused as well as the family of the victim and the same is also taken note of by the trial Court. Therefore, question of convicting the accused does not arise. When such material is available before the Court, the trial Court rightly
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB CRL.A No. 933/2018 HC-KAR extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and hence, this is not a case for reversing the judgment of the trial Court.
18. It is settled law also that while reversing the judgment of acquittal, if the appellate Court finds cogent and consistent evidence and the said evidence also corroborates with each other, then only the Court can reverse the findings of trial Court or otherwise, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused and the same would be extended and hence, no such material is found to reverse the judgment of the trial Court.
19. The Investigating Officer has not collected any broken bangles at the spot or clothe which was used by the accused to gag the mouth of the victim and both of them are the incriminating evidence.
20. In order to attract Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act is concerned, the prosecution made allegation that the accused has committed the offence against the member of Scheduled Caste. In this regard, the prosecution relied upon Ex.P6-Caste Certificate issued by Tahasildar. But Tahasildar/CW.12 was not examined before the trial Court.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB CRL.A No. 933/2018 HC-KAR
21. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sharifsab @ Sharfanna in Crl.A.No.1522/2016 C/w Crl.A.No.1530/2016 dated 10.03.2023 held that a person cannot be guilty of offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (PoA) Act by mere production of caste certificate.
22. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Registry is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to Amicus curiae for the able assistance given to this Court.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14