MUMBAI: After the trial court held Salman Khan guilty in the 2002 hit-and-run case, the Bombay High Court today gave its verdict in favour of Salman where it claimed that the prosecution’s case was weak. According to the High Court, many setbacks can be seen in Salman Khan’s 2002 hit-and-run case.
The Bombay High Court is not convinced with the proofs put forward by the prosecution. The court has stated that there is no definite proof that Salman was driving when the accident took place.
Also, there is no evidence which proves that the accident took place due to tyre burst.
The key witness in the incident, Ravindra Patil, the then bodyguard of Salman, was declared as an “unreliable witness” by the court and the repetitive changes in his statements were tagged inconsistent.
Virtually dismissing the prosecution’s case, Justice Joshi said the “prosecution failed to establish the charges (against Khan) on all counts” and that “it had failed to prove that Salman was drunk or driving” at the time of the accident, which left one pavement dweller dead and four others injured.
Also, Justice Joshi, the judge in this case said that the summoning of Kamal Khan and recording his statement was not needed. However, it is known that Kamal Khan was present with Salman the entire evening of September 28, 2002 as well as during the accident.
Salman’s lawyer also claimed that the death of one of the victims named Narula did not happen due to Salman’s car crushing him but resulted because of the crane which was called to lift the car after the accident. The vehicle slipped off the hook of the crane and fell on Narula crushing his abdomen and spinal cord.
Another reason that the Court gave the decision in Salman’s favour was because of the inability of the prosecution to substantiate their case with proper evidences.
However, some of the lawyers say that the police and prosecution both deliberately created loopholes in order to pave the way for Salman’s acquittal.