BHARATSINH NATHUSINH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN incident occurred around 11 a. m. on 19. 1. 2001 in Bapunagar area of Ahmedabad, where one Bharatsinh Nathusinh Chauhan, Chetankumar Babubhai Panchal, Bharatsinh Chandansinh Chauhan and Deepak Yadav committed assault on one Maksudkhan Kasimkham Pathan and his companion Sadik Kalubhai Sheikh with deadly weapons like pistol, sword, hockey etc. In that incident, Maksudkhan Kasimkhan Pathan suffered multiple bullet injuries and succumbed to the same, whereas Sadik Kalubhai Sheikh suffered several injuries of sword and other weapons. In respect of the incident, an FIR was lodged by Mohammad Yasin Abu Bakr Memon with Bapunagar police station, on basis of which, the offence was registered and investigation started. Maksudkhan Kasimkhan Pathan was taken to hospital, where he was found dead. Sadik Kalubhai Sheikh was also taken to hospital and treated.

(2.) CHARGE was framed at Exh. 8 against the accused persons. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. At a later point of time, after the evidence and the arguments of the prosecution was over, and the arguments of the defence had commenced, that an application was preferred by the prosecution for altering the charge. That was objected to by the defence, and the trial Court, after considering the objections, passed an order below Exh. 134, granting the alteration and altered the charge, accordingly. Opportunity was provided to both the sides, to adduce the evidence or to recall the witness, for further examination or cross-examination. The prosecution did not opt for the opportunity. The defence challenged the order, altering the charge before this Court by preferring the Criminal Revision Application, which came to be rejected ultimately, and thereafter, the defence passed a purshis before the trial Court, Exh. 150, whereby the defence also opted not to avail of the opportunity of recalling the witness or adducing any further evidence.

(3.) IT would be appropriate to record that against acquittal of original accused Nos. 2 and 3, the State has chosen not to prefer any appeal.