- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB CRL.A No. 1957 of 2025 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) AND: 1. SYED ALAF @ ALTHAF 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 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB CRL.A No. 1957 of 2025 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB CRL.A No. 1957 of 2025 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB CRL.A No. 1957 of 2025 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, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB CRL.A No. 1957 of 2025 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB CRL.A No. 1957 of 2025 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB CRL.A No. 1957 of 2025 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB CRL.A No. 1957 of 2025 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB CRL.A No. 1957 of 2025 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB CRL.A No. 1957 of 2025 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5093-DB CRL.A No. 1957 of 2025 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