[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB
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
NC: 2026:KHC:9997-DB
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
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
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
