[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Syed Alaf Alias Althaf on 29 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB
CRL.A No. 1957 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1957 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANNAPATNA EAST POLICE STATION
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M AND:
Location: HIGH
1. SYED ALAF @ ALTHAF
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O RAJAMIYA
R/AT NO.98, MAHADINAGAR
NEAR MALLAIAHNADODDI
CHANNAPATTANA.
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.375/A
B.A.STREET, DAIRA
CHANNAPATNA TOWN-562160.
2. AKBAR ALIBEG @ AKBAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB
CRL.A No. 1957 of 2025
HC-KAR
S/O LATE MUMTAJ ALIBEG
R/AT NO.160/C, 2ND CROSS
NEAR ALI AMEEN SCHOOL
OPPOSITE TO GOVT. URDU SCHOOL
JEEVAN PURA MOHALLA
NEAR SHERU CIRCLE
CHANNAPATNA TOWN-562 160.
3. MOHAMMAD MAYAHEECH ULLA @ MUHEEB
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O BLE MOHAMMAD E BRAHIMULLA
R/AT NO.11, 4TH CROSS, KALANAGARA
CHANNAPATNA TOWN-562160.
4. SAYEED AAHMAD
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O LATE HUSSAIN KHAN
R/AT NO.321, B.M.STREET
NEAR MADEENA CHOUK CROSS
CHANNAPATNA TOWN-562160.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
R1, R2 AND R4;
R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF CR.PC (419 (1) AND (3) OF BNSS) PRAYING
TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 04.04.2025 PASSED IN S.C
NO.40/2017 ON THE FILE COURT OF LEARNED III ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, THEREBY
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 120B R/W SECTION
34 OF IPC AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 04.04.2025 PASSED IN S.C NO.40/2017 ON
THE COURT OF LEARNED III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 120B R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB
CRL.A No. 1957 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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)
1. Heard the learned Addl. SPP appearing for the
appellant/State and also the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and though respondent No.3 is
served, unrepresented.
2. The factual matrix of case of prosecution that
accused persons have indulged in committing the offence
punishable under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). That on 14.12.2016
at about 10.30 a.m., the accused in order to illegally
enrich themselves, conspired to kill Mohammed Safdar Ali
by taking money from him under the pretext of
exchanging old notes for new ones. That they offered a
higher commission for the exchange of notes and invited
the victim to visit the factory. Based on the above
NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB
HC-KAR
conspiracy, the victim arrived at the factory on 15.12.2016
at approximately 11:00 a.m., and upon his arrival,
accused No.1 to 3 committed homicide by strangulating
the victim's neck with a rope and subsequently took away
the amount he was carrying. The accused persons in order
to screen the evidence, placed the dead body in a sack
and carried it in a vehicle bearing registration number KA-
02-4789 which belongs to the accused No.3. The accused
No.1 on his motorcycle bearing number KA-42-H-6049
went towards Sathnur, purchased the petrol and
subsequently all three accused travelled towards
Thenginakallu forest area and upon arrival to the forest
area, they collected all the coconut wood, placed the dead
body on the coconut wood along with the sack, poured
petrol on the dead body and set fire and destroyed the
evidence. The accused persons were arrested and
recoveries are made and the investigation was completed
and filed the charge sheet for the above offences. The
accused did not plead guilty and claims trial and hence,
NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB
HC-KAR
prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.61 witnesses and got
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.73 and MO.1 to MO.15.
3. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, comes to the
conclusion that prosecution evidence not supports the case
of prosecution and acquitted the accused and hence, the
present appeal is filed. The main contention of learned
additional SPP before this Court is that Trial Court fails to
consider the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.9 who
testify about the deceased being last seen in the presence
of the accused on 15.12.2016 at about 11:05 a.m., and
accused have also not disputed the last seen theory and so
also in respect of the prosecution has relied on digital
evidence such as mobile towers and mobile phones which
were produced during the trial and also indicate the
accused and the deceased who were present at the scene
of the offence where evidence was destroyed by burning
the body. However, the respondents have not disputed the
same and counsel also would submits that recovery was
NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB
HC-KAR
made at the instance of the accused and though witnesses
have not supported the case of prosecution, the Trial Court
fails to take note of the voluntary statement in the
presence of independent witnesses was made and comes
to the erroneous conclusion that voluntary statement was
not recorded in the presence of witnesses.
4. The counsel also would submits that P.W.35 in
his evidence states that accused No.4 pledged a gold item
on 22.06.2016 and obtained a loan of Rs.1,35,000/- which
was subsequently renewed after committing the offence in
this case, accused No.4 came and paid Rs.1,81,204/- to
P.W.35 settling the pending loan amount and took the gold
chain from him and this evidence is not accepted by the
Trial Court and committed an error.
5. Per contra the counsel appearing for the
respondent would submits that none of the witnesses
supported the case of prosecution either for recovery or
for loss in witness and also with regard to the digital
evidence also there is no any admissible evidence before
NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB
HC-KAR
the Court and there is no any certificate under Section
65(B)(4) of the Evidence Act. The Trial Court in detail
discussed the same and comes to the conclusion that the
case of prosecution is not proved and there is no any
circumstantial evidence to prove the case against the
accused.
6. Having heard the learned Addl. SPP appearing
for appellant and also the counsel appearing for the
respondent/accused and also considering the material on
record, case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence.
There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. It is also the
case of the prosecution that for wrongful gain, murder was
committed by accused persons. The prosecution relies
upon the last seen witness evidence i.e., P.W.6, P.W.7 and
P.W.8 and their evidence not corroborates each other that
they have seen the accused persons and also the
deceased. In order to prove the conspiracy is concerned,
no evidence at all and though P.W.53 deposes that her
husband availed the loan of Rs.9,00,000/- prior to his
NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB
HC-KAR
murder from Kadhir Ahammed and money was given to
his house and while giving the money, her husband's
brother Zakir Ali Nazrath Akthar and mother-in-law and
herself were present. At the first instance, an amount of
Rs.4,20,000/- and again an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- was
given and while leaving the house, her husband wearing
night pant and jerkin, but he did not turn up and this
witness evidence is only with regard to carrying the money
and in order to establish the circumstances of last seen
theory as well as recovery of Rs.4,20,000/- as contended
by the prosecution, none of the witnesses have supported
the case of the prosecution and all mahazar witnesses
have also turned hostile and even with regard to
distributing the amount themselves, no material is found.
The P.W.6 says that accused No.1 to 3 were discussing
and they were sitting on the white colour Activa and in
front of the factory also there was a passenger Auto
rickshaw. When the P.W.6 was subjected to cross-
examination, witness says that accused No.1 to 3 Sabdar
NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB
HC-KAR
Ali was residing in their house and hence, he was having
acquaintance and came to know that he did not return, but
they were searching in Channapatna town and he found
the dead body after 2 days and this evidence also not
supports the case of prosecution. Having considered both
oral and documentary evidence particularly evidence of
P.W.8 was also discussed in paragraph No.44 with regard
to the seizure is concerned. In the cross-examination, he
says Police obtained his signature and Police told that
accused is going to make his voluntary statement and he
was a panch witness and with regard to the compliance of
recovery, there is no evidence. Even though P.W.17 was
examined before the Court with regard to the recovery of
amount of Rs.4,72,000/- and mahazar was drawn and in
the cross-examination, he says that he went to the spot
where the people were gathered and there were number
of persons and Police were also there and amount was also
removed from the Almirah, the same can be visible since it
was having glass window, but he says that he signed the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB
HC-KAR
mahazar in the Police Station and recovery in respect of
this witness i.e., P.W.17 is also doubtful since according to
him already people have gathered near the place where
the recovery was made. The Trial Court taking into note of
all these materials available on record, both oral and
documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that there
is no any chain of circumstances to establish the case of
the prosecution since the case is mainly based upon the
circumstantial evidence.
7. Having re-assessed the material available on
record and also the reasoning given by the Trial Court, we
do not find any ground to admit and reconsider this
appeal. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of
all the witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.60 in paragraph No.94
comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has not
discharged the burden in proving the case since the case is
rest upon the circumstantial evidence and all the witnesses
have turned a hostile with regard to the recovery is
concerned and also with regard to the last seen of the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB
HC-KAR
accused and deceased also, no evidence inspires the
confidence of the Court and when such reasoning is given
by the Trial Court having appreciated both the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence and
even though mahazars were drawn for recovery, none of
the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution
and hence, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal.
8. In view of the discussions made above, we pass
the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
RHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
