 "Loopholes which sank the case against Salman Khan")
On Thursday afternoon, the Bombay High Court acquitted Salman Khan of all charges in the 2002 hit-and-run case after it punched holes into the prosecution’s case.
While pronouncing the verdict, the judge said, “On the basis of evidence submitted by the prosecution, Salman Khan cannot be convicted.”
A day before the judgement, the court had observed that the prosecution had failed to prove that the actor had consumed liquor and was driving the Toyota Land Cruiser when the incident took place.
Commenting upon the judgement, noted lawyer Nitin Pradhan told DNA that populism does not dictate how the law works and that the judges pronounce verdict on the basis of the evidence. "We can't criticise any judges, be of the lower court or the higher court, in this case. Both have given their verdict on the way they appreciated the evidence placed before them," Pradhan said. "The victims were promised a certain compensation, but they have not received it yet. We all should be worried about that rather than what happens to Salman Khan,” Pradhan added.
The same report quoted Majeed Memon, a senior counsel, saying: “…Now that the HC has acquitted Salman, the state, victims or any NGO which enjoys locus in the case, are well within their rights to challenge it in the apex court. However, seeing the HC order, success of getting a conviction in the Supreme Court looks bleak.”
The testimony of the star-witness, Ravindra Patil, former police bodyguard of the actor, proved ineffective as the judge said that Patil was a wholly unreliable witness because he had made improvements subsequently in his statement given to a magistrate.
Mid Day reported that it could not be proved that Salman was the one who was driving when the incident occurred. A parking assistant at the JW Marriott Hotel stated that he had seen Salman in the driver’s seat. But the defence said that Salman’s driver, Ashok Singh, reached the hotel later and took the wheel. Furthermore, Ashok testified that he had been at the wheel on that fateful night.
According to the same report, there were discrepancies in the collection and testing of Salman’s blood sample. Although 6 ml of Salman’s blood had been drawn, only 4 ml reached the forensic laboratory. No explanation in this regard was given by the FSL. The report added that whether Salman was drunk or not on that night was not sufficiently proved in court. Among other issues, neither the FIR, nor the OPD papers from Salman’s check-up, included any mention of drink driving. While the police claimed they had recovered bills from Rain Bar in Vile Parle, to prove Salman had been drinking, no panchnama was carried out to verify those bills.
The Mid Day report also noted that it could not be proved that the car carrying Salman was being driven negligently and at speeds of 90 to 100 kmph, as claimed by the police.
The court also observed that the prosecution should have examined the actor’s singer friend Kamaal Khan, who was with him in the car when the mishap took place.
