MOHD. IQBAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, an FIR was lodged against three unknown persons on 16.3.2010 by Mohd. Iqbal (the applicant herein) wherein it was stated that on 16.3.2010, his brother Mohd. Iqram had gone on a motorcycle to collect payment, for sugarcane supplied by him, from the sugar mill. At about 1 PM on that day, when he was returning home, three motorcycle borne assailants intercepted him in the way and they looted his motorcycle and the money which he had received from the sugar mill. When his brother resisted, all the three assailants opened fire on his brother who suffered two gunshot injuries. His brother was shifted to the Civil Hospital, Roorkee where he died ultimately. On hearing the sound of gunfire, people of the vicinity gathered there and on seeing them, the assailants fled away from the spot.

(2.) On 18.11.2010, one Satpal Sharma sworn in an affidavit wherein he stated that at about 1 PM on 16.3.2010, he left his house on a bicycle and was going towards Puhana. When he reached near the place of occurrence, he saw that three motorcycle borne persons were fleeing away after gunshot injuries to a person who was also on a motorcycle. The injured called Satpal Sharma by indication and narrated the entire incident to him. The injured hold him that he was shot by Farman, the brother-in-law of his cousin brother and two other persons, namely, Salim and Mubarik were accompanying Farman and all the three together committed the crime. After saying this much, the injured started faltering and the crowd started gathering at the spot. Thereafter police arrived at the spot and this witness told all these things to the police.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant drew attention of this Court towards the provisions envisaged under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 311 CrPC reads as under: