Another witness doesn’t turn up, warrant issued
Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI) special judge (CBI) Anupam Srivastava on Friday issued bailable warrant against another witness of Shehla Masood murder case -- Sohail Athar Zaidi -- after he failed to turn up in the court.bhopal Updated: Sep 01, 2012 15:53 IST
Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI) special judge (CBI) Anupam Srivastava on Friday issued bailable warrant against another witness of Shehla Masood murder case -- Sohail Athar Zaidi -- after he failed to turn up in the court.
With this, the court has issued bailable warrant to three persons so far, including late Masood’s father.
On Friday, out of two witnesses who were supposed to appear in the court, only ASI MR Uikey from the Bhopal’s Koh-e-Fiza police station, who reached the crime spot first, appeared before the designated court.
The court fixed next hearing on September 18. The court directed that all the three persons -- Sohail Athar Zaidi, Sultan Masood (father of Shehla Masood) and Sayyed Rahil Hussain - to be present during the next hearing, Saba Farooqi’s counsel Sunil Shrivastava said.
The court also asked the investigation agency to take responsibility for producing its witnesses in the court, to avoid further action against them.
Earlier, on August 1 the court had decided to start the trial from August 30. Giving information about Friday’s trial, Shrivastava said that MR Uikey, an assistant sub-inspector from the nearby police station, was cross- examined by defence counsel.
During the trial, which lasted for more than one- and- halfhour, Saba’s counsel asked various questions about scene of crime and evidences present on the site.
Defence counsel Shrivastava said that there was a difference of 35 minutes in the time reported for the murder. According to the complainants, Masood was shot dead around 12 noon, while in the police records the incident is reported to have taken place at 12.35pm. On this, Uikey replied that this could be a typing mistake. “Since some other person typed the report and even he cannot read the report,” said Shrivastava quoting the ASI.
Defence counsel also cross examined the witness over injury mark found on Masood’s neck, her position in the car i.e. whether she was on driving seat or next to driving seat, distance of crime spot from victim’s residence, since scene of crime is just 10 - 15 feet away from her residence, did anyone hear the sound of gunshot or did anyone see any red, green or black colour bike, weight of dead body or was it possible for single person to lift the dead body, etc.
Lastly defence counsel asked Uikey whether he had earlier investigated any case of serious matter before Shehla Masood case. To this, Uikey replied that Masood’s case was the first serious case of his career and he did not know about its importance.