Gujarat High Court
Mayudin Samsuddin Chipa vs State Of Gujarat on 29 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1370/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1370
of 2025
=================================================
MAYUDIN SAMSUDDIN CHIPA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHINKHAN H PATHAN(13814) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. ADIT V PANCHOLI(14657) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Opponent(s)/
Respondent(s) No. 1
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 29/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated
11.09.2024 passed in Sessions Case No. 104 of 2023 on the file of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1370/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
learned Sessions Judge, Lunawada, Mahisagar.
3. As per the prosecution case, there are four accused in the case.
The second respondent herein is the accused No. 2 (A2) in the said
case. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 (A1 and A3) were already acquitted of
the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34, 120-
B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in Sessions Case
No. 122 of 2001 as per the judgment dated 15.11.2002. The other
accused i.e. accused No. 4 (A4) is said to be absconding and is not
yet traced. Therefore, the case against A1 and A3 was separated and
they were tried for the said charges and they were acquitted long
back in the year 2002. It is stated that respondent No. 2 herein, who
is A2, also absconded and thereafter, he surrendered after 23 years in
the year 2021 and he was tried and prosecuted for the same charges.
After conclusion of the trial, he was also not found guilty for any of
the aforesaid charges and he was acquitted of the said charges as per
the judgment dated 11.09.2024.
4. As can be seen from the judgment of the trial Court, the entire
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1370/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
case of the prosecution rested purely on circumstantial evidence.
According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased got illegal
intimacy with the wife of A2, who is A3. A1 is the brother of A2.
A4 is the friend of A1 and A2. So, it is stated that all of them
conspired together and they have attacked the deceased with fatal
weapons like Axe and Spade etc. It is stated that A1 attacked the
deceased with an Axe and caused injuries to him on his face and on
other vital parts of the body of the deceased and A2 herein attacked
the deceased with a Spade, while A3 caught hold of legs of the
deceased and the A4 also, caught hold of the deceased. The trial
Court, while acquitting the A1 and A3, found the chain of
circumstances relied on by the prosecution is not proved and
particularly, the motive that was attributed is not proved and also the
fact that the deceased was last seen together along with the accused
was also not proved and as there are missing links in the chain of
circumstances that the prosecution could not establish the guilt of A1
and A3 and thereby, acquitted them. Similarly, in the present case
also, the trial Court found that the circumstances relied on by the
prosecution to establish the guilt of A2 herein are not proved and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1370/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
motive and the last seen together theory are not proved in this case
also. Therefore, as the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances
relied on by it to substantiate its case against the accused, the trial
Court also acquitted the present accused in the said case. It is to be
noticed here that when A1 and A3 were acquitted long back in the
year 2002, no appeal was preferred against the said judgment
acquittal either by the State or by the victim herein who is the
present appellant. But, surprisingly, the victim has preferred this
appeal against A2. The State has not preferred any appeal against
the present judgment of acquittal. At any rate, after perusal of the
judgment of the trial Court, it is evident that as the circumstances
relied on by the prosecution, more particularly, the motive part and
the last seen together theory that was relied on was not proved as the
material witness who according to the prosecution has seen the
deceased in the company of the accused before his death did not
support the prosecution case and he turned hostile, the trial Court
held that the said circumstance is not proved. Therefore, in the said
facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any valid reason
warranting interference of this Court with the said judgment of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1370/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
acquittal or the findings recorded by the trial Court. The findings
recorded by the trial Court in acquitting the accused are based on
proper appreciation of evidence on record and there is no manifest
error of law and there are no infirmities found in the said findings of
the trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal
warrants no interference and we do not find any ground even to
admit the appeal for hearing. Therefore, after perusing the appeal
grounds and the copy of the judgment of the trial Court, we are of
the considered view that the appeal deserves rejection summarily.
No case is made out by the appellant for admission of the appeal
even.
5. It is settled law that in an appeal against acquittal, the accused
is entitled to double presumption of innocence. The initial
presumption of innocence will be reinforced by the judgment of
acquittal. Therefore, very strong legal grounds are required to
interfere with the judgment of acquittal, which are miserably lacking
in this case. There is no evidence at all to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond any reasonable doubt.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1370/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
6. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed summarily at the
admission stage under Section 425 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
[ Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. ]
[ D. M. Vyas, J. ]
hiren/2tss29725
