Free Press Journal

Bombay High Court acquits Salman Khan in hit-and-run case


salman-khan-verdict(FILES) In this photograph taken on May 8, 2015, Indian Bollywood film actor Salman Khan leaves his home to appear at a Sessions Court in Mumbai. An Indian court December 10, 2015 cleared Bollywood superstar Salman Khan of killing a homeless man in a hit-and-run crash 13 years ago, acquitting him of all charges after he filed an appeal against his conviction. AFP PHOTO/ PUNIT PARANJPE / FILES

Mumbai: In a huge relief for Salman Khan, the Bombay High Court today acquitted him in the 2002 hit-and-run case, ruling the prosecution had failed to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that actor was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and was drunk. The judgement came on an appeal by the superstar, seven months after he was pronounced guilty by the trial court of running over five people sleeping on a pavement outside a laundry in suburban Bandra with his Toyota Land Cruiser, killing one and causing injury to four others on October 28, 2002 and sentenced him to five years in jail.

“The appeal is allowed. The trial court’s verdict is quashed and set aside…Salman is acquitted of all the charges,” Justice A R Joshi said, reading out the judgement. “….this court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring material on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant (Salman was driving and was under the influence of alcohol, also, whether the accident occurred due to bursting (of tyre) prior to the incident or tyre burst after the incident…,” the judge said.

After the verdict was pronounced in a jam-packed courtroom, the 49-year-old actor, overcome with emotions, broke down in full public view before being asked by his long-time bodyguard Shera to turn his face toward the wall so people do not see his tears. A visibly relieved Salman was later seen humming a song as sister Alvira flashed a ‘Thumbs up’ sign.

The judge rejected as “wholly unreliable” the statement of eyewitness Ravindra Patil, former police bodyguard of Salman, recorded by a Magistrate in which he had accused the actor of driving under the influence of liquor. The judge said Patil a “wholly unreliable” witness because he had subsequently made “improvements” in his statement to the Magistrate. Patil, the first informant in the case, had in the FIR filed soon after the accident, not accused Salman of having consumed liquor but only said he was “speeding” against his advice.

The prosecution’s case during the trial firmly rested on the statement of Patil, who died in 2007, much before the case was tried afresh under the more serious charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Magistrate’s court had conducted the trial for a much lesser offence of causing death by rash and negligent driving.

Holding that the evidence was “weak”, Justice Joshi dwelt upon the shortcomings in the prosecution’s case, including not recording evidence of important witnesses and also omissions and contradictions in the evidence of injured witnesses.

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has said the government will decide on whether to appeal against the judgement after going through the court’s order. “We will examine the (High) court order and decide further course of action.”

Justice Joshi said, “There is a vast difference between Indian Penal Code sections – 304-A (causing death due to rashness) and 304, Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). “While 304-A entails a maximum punishment of two years and fine or both, 304, Part-II, attracts a punishment of maxium of ten years and fine or both. When the trial was initially held in the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court the charge was 304-A, while when it was in Sessions Court, it was under 304, Part-II – and hence the nature of offences are different and it cannot be said that the question in issue are substantially same,” he said.

The judge said the statement of Ravindra Patil cannot be accepted under section 33 of Indian Evidence Act, particularly when he had died and was not available for cross-examination. The judge said the prosecution should have examined Kamaal Khan, singer friend of Salman, who was with him in the Toyota Land Cruiser when the mishap occurred on September 28, 2002.

Summons had been issued to Khan by the trial court but the matter was not followed up further. The court also rejected the prosecution’s charge that Salman’s family driver Ashok Singh, who had on March 28 appeared before the trial court and claimed he was behind the wheels at the time of the accident, was a “got up witness”.

“The trial court has described family driver Ashok Singh has a ‘got up witness’ and that he came after 13 years. In fact, he has come on time. A wrong impression was created, that too by learned prosecutor in the Sessions Court that he was coming after 13 years,” the judge said.

The court also rejected as “fabricated” the four bills of Rain Bar, where the actor and his friends were claimed to have consumed alcohol before the mishap, that prosecution had presented in support of its case. The bills were dated October 27, 2002, a day before the date of accident. There was also a noting on the bill in writing saying Salman had footed it, leading the court to conclude it was fabricated.