It may be too soon to rejoice over Salman Khan’s being sentenced to five years jail for killing the rare and gentle black buck at Bhagoda ki Dhani in Kankani village near Jodhpur in Rajasthan at midnight of October 1-2, 1998, during the shooting of Hum Saath Saath Hain. This is because the underlying dictum in criminal jurisprudence is that the more heinous the crime, the stricter the evidence needed to uphold a conviction.
And just as Salman had the last laugh when he was acquitted by a doubting Bombay high court Justice A R Joshi of culpable homicide not amounting to murder when he allegedly drove over five men sleeping outside the American bakery on Septemebr 28, 2002, he may be acquitted by the Rajasthan high court yet again. Khan allegedly offered money to his loyal “family” driver Ashok Singh to depose in court that it was he (the driver) and not Salman who drove the Toyota Landcruiser that night.
The enfant terrible of Bollywood, Salman Khan, was earlier convicted of culpable homicide and sentenced to five years in jail by Judge D R Deshmukh of the Bombay sessions court. But when you lose in the lower court, you double your stakes and approach the high court which was why Salman was acquitted twice of killing a man and killing rare chinkara deer by Justice Nirmaljit Kaur of the Rajasthan high court in 2017. The judge said the exact spot where the chinkaras were killed was not pinpointed nor did the blood stains of the slain deer match with those found in the vehicle which Salman was driving.
Salman’s producers will leave no stone unturned to ensure Salman is freed on bail because he has Rs 500 crore in unfinished films riding on him. The basic dictum reiterated by the apex court repeatedly is that criminals like Salman must be granted bail and not sent to jail unless they flee from justice. The Supreme Court has always said the rule of bail and not jail can be flouted when there are circumstances suggestive of “fleeing from justice or thwarting justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by those who seek bail from the court”.
So, never mind that Salman Khan is a habitual offender who has been charged with killing a man sleeping outside a bakery apart from killing chinkaras and black buck. His lawyers will say he does charity and will never intimidate witnesses. But when he faced a trial for drunken driving and killing a man outside the American bakery on September 28, 2002, four years after killing the rare black buck in 1998, Salman’s bodyguard and the star witness, Ravindra Patil was left to die totally destitute in the Sewri hospital. Neither Salman Khan nor Patil’s top bosses in the Maharashtra police bothered to visit him.
Ravindra Patil clearly told the police that it was Salman Khan who drove the Toyota Landcruiser onto the steps of the American bakery at the turning of Mehboob studios in Bandra in 2002 when Patil was sitting inside the car. Patil confirmed that Salman was drunk when the incident took place.
On March 12, 2006, Ravindra Patil was arrested at Mahableshwar for not attending court and sent to Arthur Road jail after a non-bailable warrant was issued against him. He repeatedly said his seniors in the police force used to harass him because he refused to resile from his testimony. There is no evidence that Salman offered him money to retract his statement. But the fact is that Ravindra Patil died destitute in the Sewri TB hospital on 4 October 2007, because of tuberculosis when he was 30 years old.
Hence, for all his charitable work, Salman did not deem it fit to pay Patil’s bills while he was being treated for tuberculosis at Sewri. His so-called charity and popularity did not impel him to visit Ravindra Patil in the Sewri hospital because Salman Khan would have been embarrassed to look into the eyes of his dying bodyguard who knew the truth.
The fact is that Ravindra Patil’s evidence clinched the prosecution case. He was too honest to retract from his first statement to the police. That Ravindra Patil should die of tuberculosis helped Salman because if Ravindra Patil had survived and stuck to what he had told the police earlier, Justice A R Joshi would not have been able to acquit Salman Khan.
And again in the killing of the black buck, the fact remains that it is only his co-stars Saif Ali Khan, Sonali Bendre, Tabu and Neelam Kothari who know the truth. But they are Khan’s accomplices and their statements to the police cannot be used in court. They cannot be summoned as witnesses because of their role in allegedly inciting Salman Khan to kill the black buck. This is why these eye-witnesses to what actually took place will have to live with an uneasy conscience for the rest of their lives. That is, if Salman Khan walks free yet again after he appeals to the Rajasthan high court. Which he will surely do.
Olav Albuquerque holds a PhD in media law and is a journalist-cum-lawyer of the Bombay high court.
