Bollywood actor Salman Khan who filed an appeal on his ongoing 2002 hit and run case has come up with more twist and turns. Bombay High court who started the hearing of the case on July 30 for the appeal filed by the Salman Khan against his five year jail sentence has pointed out a few clarification in defence.
Senior counsel Amit Desai who appeared in the court for actor pointed out saying that the hotel bills obtained by the police showing that Salman Khan was drinking was of different table and not that of the actor’s table. He also argued saying that the bills appeared were of a date prior to the date Salman Khan went.
Salman Khan’s lawyer also argued that the trial court has made a mistake saying that the actor was driving the car and the second very important defence point he brought out was that irrespective of who ever was driving the vehicle, the accused was not drunk.
He also kept his point saying that the prosecution failed to prove that actor had taken drinks before the accident. Further arguing he said that actor had went to two restaurants and that too with his friends if he would have ordered liquor collective evidence of eye witnesses could have proved. There is, however, no collective evidence of eye witnesses. Only witness proved by them was a waiter and the manager, he argued.
Amit Desai also stated that police knew the existence of driver Ashok Singh but he was depose hat he was behind the wheel. In fact from the day one and also on the very day of the accident he was called for the investigation. He suggested that the driver was an after thought and a ‘got-up witness’ is not correct.
Amit Desai also questioned asking that the actor would be convicted based on the evidence of Ravindra Patil (who was eye witness and a appointed constable for Salman Khan who passed away in 2007) He questioned that should the actor can be convicted on the basis of the evidence only? In fact Ravindra Patil should have been first of the 27 witnesses but during the last few evidences an application was moved under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act that Patil’s statement should be made admissible.
Now Amit Desai has moved an application seeking directions in which the hearing of the appeal should be reported. He also said that after the video recording took place during the trail in the court, certain guidelines were issued for the media also.
Also the Supreme Court rejected the plea by the mother of a deceased Mumbai police constable for the transfer of 2002 hit and run case from Mumbai to Delhi.
Ravindra Patil’s mother Sushila Bai Himmat Rao Patil, had filed an application alleging that he was under pressure to withdraw the statement. The court said that the application does not has any locus in the intervene of the case.
Following the case, Sentence was suspended on May 08, and fresh bail was granted in cash of Rs 30,000 in lieu of surety as a temporary measure.
Salman Khan’s car had met with accident in suburban Bandra on September 28, 2002, killing one person and injuring four. 13 years after the trial began, Salman Khan’s 2002 hit and run case came to end on May 6 where session court found him guilty and sentenced him for five years jail, convicted under all charges including under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code (rash and negligent driving); 279 (rash driving); 337 (causing minor injuries); 338 (causing major injuries) 427 (negligence) in connection with the case.