With the ongoing Salman Khan’s 2002 hit and run case, the actor’s lawyer, Amit Desai continued to argue in defence of Salman Khan on Wednesday at the Bombay High Court. Keeping his argument on, lawyer Amit Desai in defence of Salman said that no evidences from the testimony of the 27 witnesses that show that the actor was driving car at the night of the accident.
After arguing on the same point, Amit Desai continued to defend on the evidences that were present by the prosecution. After the last hearing, Desai put his point saying that the entire case was present under circumstantial evidences. He also argued saying singer Kamal Khan who was also present in the car during the accident was not examined before the trial court. He made a point that doctor who conducted autopsy of the victim was produced in the court, but the prosecution did not try to make efforts to trace Kamal Khan.
Further adding in his argument, Desai said that no eye witnesses proved that Salman Khan was driving. The only statement said by them was from which side the actor came out from the car during the accident. Justice AR Joshi will continue to hear the arguments on Thursday.
During the last hearing, 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 gone to two restaurant,s 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 an appointed constable for Salman Khan who passed away in 2007) He questioned that should the actor 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.
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.
Also Read: Salman Khan Doubles The Fun In Kick Sequel!