Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Saiyed Salim Mirsabminya on 15 July, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1489/2010 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1489 of 2010
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 310 of 2011
======================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SAIYED SALIM MIRSABMINYA
======================================
Appearance:
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1489 of 2010
MS. MEGHA CHITALIA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AMIT M BAROT(5868) for Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 310 of 2011
MR. IMRAN H. PATHAN for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. MEGHA CHITALIA, APP for Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)No. 1
MR AMIT M BAROT(5868) for Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
ORDER IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 310 of 2011
1. Mr. Imran H. Pathan, learned advocate for the
appellant, in Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 2011, filed by victim,
places on record withdrawal pursis duly signed on oath by
victim/first-informant - Manojkumar Pravinbhai Makwana, who
is present before the Court and duly identified by his advocate.
2. As coming out from the withdrawal pursis, first-
informant and accused are staying in a small village and at
present, there is peace prevailing in the village and between
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1489/2010 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
the parties as well. It has come in the withdrawal pursis, duly
affirmed and signed by the first-informant, that both the sides
are having good, healthy and friendly relations between them,
there is peace between both the sides, and therefore, first-
informant is withdrawing all the allegations alleged by him with
respect to the present offence and filing the withdrawal pursis
before the High Court. The said withdrawal pursis is ordered to
be taken on record.
3. In view of the aforesaid withdrawal pursis, first-
informant - appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 2011, who
is present before the Court duly identified by the learned
advocate representing him, seeks to withdraw the said appeal.
4. In view thereof, Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 2011 is
permitted to be withdrawn. Hence, Criminal Appeal No. 310 of
2011 is hereby disposed of as withdrawn.
5. Copy of this order be placed in the file of connected
appeal as well.
ORDER IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1489 of 2010
1. He has also stated that since he has already
withdrawn his appeal challenging the very same judgment and
order of acquittal, even if appeal preferred by the State is
dismissed, he has no objection.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1489/2010 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
2. Considering the fact that, offence under the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") alleged against
the respondent - accused so far as it relates to offence under
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, first-informant - victim, who
is present before the Court, has withdrawn his own appeal
challenging the very same judgment and order of acquittal as
challenged by the State, where also he is a party to be heard
independent of his own appeal, if no appeal is preferred by
him, when order of acquittal is recorded by the learned Judge
on appreciation of evidence of the offence, in view of the
amicable atmosphere in the small village between the parties
is prevailing, even the appeal preferred by the State is
required to be dismissed.
3. It appears from the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal that reasons assigned by the learned Judge on
appreciation of evidence, coupled with the fact that now first-
informant - victim is also not interested in proceeding with his
own appeal as also not objecting to the State appeal being
dismissed, remaining offences punishable under Sections 323
and 504 of the "IPC" are made compoundable. However, it has
come to the notice that vide Exhibit-33, prosecution had given
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1489/2010 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
an application for amending the charge and Section 324 of the
"IPC" came to be added, considering the snow shovel used as
a weapon of offence.
However, the trial Judge has not believed the case
against the accused on appreciation of evidence led before it
as also when the first-informant - victim is also not interested
in proceeding against the accused as he himself has withdrawn
his own appeal preferred against the very same judgment and
order, without discussing snow shovel to be considered as a
dangerous weapon or means or not when used as a weapon of
offence, respecting the wish of the first-informant - victim and
considering the peace prevailing in the village as also between
the parties, I do not deem it fit to entertain this appeal
preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order of
acquittal dated 20.05.2010, when offence has taken place
almost 15-16 years back, passed by Special Judge (Atrocity),
Mehsana in Special Atrocity Case No. 46 of 2009.
4. In view thereof, the appeal preferred by the State
also stands dismissed.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.)
Raj
