Bollywood actor Salman Khan filed a caveat petition in the Supreme Court today asking to be heard when the Maharashtra government’s appeal against his acquittal in the 2002 hit-and-run case comes up for hearing.
The case dates back to September 28, 2002 when the actor’s SUV hit five people sleeping on a pavement in Bandra, Mumbai leading to the death of one person. Four others were injured in the incident.
In May last year, a trial court had found the actor guilty handing him a five-year sentence, but the Bombay High Court overturned the trial court order in December letting the actor walk free. The High Court additionally noted that the probe was conducted in a faulty and careless manner.
- Bigg Boss 10 Day 3 Review: Celebs Fail To Do Well in First Task
- Airtel Offers 10GB Data At Rs 259 For New 4G Smartphone Users
- Aamir Khan Starrer Dangal’s Trailer Launched: First Impressions
- TMC Supporters Attack BJP Leader Babul Supriyo
- Sri Lankan Navy Apprehends 20 Indian Fishermen
- Hillary Clinton accuses Donald Trump of being Vladimir Putin’s ‘puppet’
- Senior UP Congress Leader Rita Bahuguna Joshi Joins BJP
- Missing JNU Student: VC Gives Ultimatum To Students Over ‘Illegal Confinement’
- US Presidential Debate: Donald Trump Calls Hillary Clinton ‘A Nasty Woman’
- Hasselblad True Zoom Mod Review
- Honor 8 First Look Video
- Apple Watch 2: Review, Price And Features
- Delhi HC Dismisses Kejriwal’s Plea For Stay In Criminal Defamation Case
- Gulzar Shares An Interesting Anecdote Behind The Lyrics of ‘Humne Dekhi Hai’ Song
- Diya Mirza Displays Her Painting Skills At An Art Festival In Mumbai
Last Friday, the Maharashtra government challenged the acquittal of the actor in the top court through a petition which disputed the earlier High Court finding.
The appeal said evidence of complainant Ravindra Patil, who was with Salman in the Toyota Land Cruiser, was legally tenable and its rejection was wrong. Patil was the actor’s bodyguard who had said Salman was driving drunk and had ignored his warnings. Patil died of tuberculosis in 2007 and when the High Court examined his testimonies, it held the evidence was not admissible under law.