Salman Khan 2002 hit-and-run case: ‘Bills presented by police were of different table and date’

According to Desai, the first defence is that the actor was not the one driving the vehicle while the second very important defence is that irrespective of who was driving the vehicle, the accused was not drunk. Desai further argued that the prosecution had failed to establish that the actor was having drinks. In fact, blood samples were taken 13 hours later “and a report was obtained to suggest that alcohol content was in excess of the permissible level.” he said.

[related-post]

“The prosecution should have proved whether he had consumed alcohol or not. The actor went to two restaurants and was there with his friends. Considering that he is a famous star, Salman was a recognisable face in the bar. There were friends, guests and those who served and could have proved if he had liquor. Also there were bills which could prove if he had consumed liquor. There is, however, no collective evidence of eye witnesses. Only witness is a waiter of Rain Bar and the manager,” he added.

Stating that there were three not two eye witnesses to the accident, Desai said that there was enough evidence to show that the police knew of the existence of the driver, Ashok Singh, (who had deposed that he was behind the wheel) from day one and even called him to the police station on that very day. “To suggest that the driver was an after thought and a ‘got-up witness’ is not correct,” said Desai.

Desai also questioned whether the actor could be convicted based on the evidence of Ravindra Patil, a police constable who was appointed as Salman’s bodyguard and passed away in 2007. His testimony in the magistrate’s court was made admissible in the trial court and was the basis for the actor’s conviction.

“He has been convicted on the basis of testimony of an eye-witness who is no more and not available for cross-examination. Can you convict a person on the basis of that evidence only,” said Desai.

Desai said that Patil should have been the first out of 27 witnesses. “When the investigating officers stepped into the box, (as the last few witnesses) an application was moved under Section 33 ((Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated) of the Indian Evidence Act that Patil’s statement should be made admissible,” he said.

He further questioned why when it was learnt that Patil was no more, the presence of the second eye witness Kamal Khan was not secured.

“Why did the state not secure the presence of Kamal Khan so that his testimony could be recorded as an eye witness. The evidence has to be recorded in presence of the accused,” said Desai.

“Where is the occasion to say that he was not driving when the witnesses from one to 27 were not eye-witnesses,” he further added.

Meanwhile, Desai also moved an application seeking directions in which the hearing of the appeal should be reported. He brought to the notice of the court that after a video recording took place at the sessions court during the trial, certain guidelines were issued for the media.

The HC passed orders stating that day-to-day reporting should be based on factual events and comments on arguments shall not be reported.

Court rejects plea filed by deceased cop’s mother

Years after he died, mother of Ravindra Patil, Sushila Bai Himmat Rao Patil, filed an application alleging that “he was under heavy pressure to withdraw his statement. He was being threatened, pressurised and harassed to change his statement by the state police, henchmen of Salman Khan.”

The application further stated that he was prohibited to appear in court.

He failed to appear in court five times allegedly because he was locked up in Arthur Jail and later he was removed from his job.

“He was regularly ill-treated and tortured inside the jail and was slowly poisoned under the direction of the accused which led to his death,” the application alleged.

His mother sought to be made respondent in the case “as a victim as contemplated under code of criminal procedure.”

The court, however, rejected the application stating that he did not receive any injuries during the accident. “Considering the definition of victim and the case at hand, Patil cannot be considered as a victim after his death. Similarly nor can his mother,” the court said.

The application also sought for cancellation of Salman’s bail. The court said that the present applicant does not have locus to intervene in this appeal whereby the actor was seeking to challenge his conviction.

“If there is any grievance of the mother, the said grievance can be redressed by initiating action before competent forum and not through appeal.”

Advocate M L Sharma, appearing for the mother, further alleged that there was something malafide behind the death of her son.
The court said that there was nothing in the application stating the same.

ruhi.bhasin@expressindia.com