It’s trite that justice must be seen to have been done but Bombay High Court’s Justice A R Joshi perhaps did justice to only accused Salman Khan while leaving a plethora of doubts on dispensing it for Nurullah Ansari, the man crushed to death in the hit-and-run-case, as well as appreciation of key facts.
Salman’s fate turned bright when the Bombay High Court showed extraordinary haste, rather anxiety, in ensuring that he should not undergo even an hour of the five-year imprisonment awarded by a sessions court on May 9, 2015.
The high court seemed to have treated Salman’s acquittal as a special case but disregarded the fact that drunken, rash and negligent driving takes a toll of one lakh lives in India every year.
The Bail Out
Within hours of the trial court’s order, the High Court constituted a single-judge bench of Justice Abhay Thipsay who released him on bail saying, “This is not a case where I should keep him (Khan) in jail till his appeal is heard and decided. Why should his right suffer when his appeal is admitted and kept pending? In many cases people have suffered and spent their entire prison term only to be acquitted later by the high court.”
Justice Thipsay’s set the tone which Justice Joshi pursued while acquitting Salman of all charges. “We cannot take pleasure in the fact that someone is in custody. There is no law that says if there is alcohol [in blood] it is culpable homicide,” held Justice Joshi.
.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fmt=webp&width=720)
Lakhs Of Undertrials Languish
This observation might be laudable but the fact remains that over 3,000 of the 2.8 lakh prisoners have been undertrials for more than five years. Two of every three persons incarcerated in India have not yet been convicted of any crime. One wishes that the high court’s humane reasoning while acquitting Salman Khan influences the all three tiers of the judiciary. But all undertrials are not of Salman’s stature.
The fallacy in awarding bail within hours of Salman’s conviction was echoed across social media and mainline news channels. Similar voices expressing disappointment against Justice Joshi’s judgement-in-installments, unheard of in the history of the Indian judiciary, have been aired.
Who Killed Nurullah?
- 3,000 of the 2.8 lakh
prisoners in India have been undertrials for more than five years; why only
Salman Khan is able to go scot-free on humane grounds?
- Most striking aspect of
judgement in Salman Khan’s hit and run case is that of high court delving into
evidence that went against the accused in the trial court
- Quite appalling that the Bombay
High Court set aside Ravindra Patil’s testimony who was accompanying Salman on
that fateful night
- Another erroneous aspect of
Justice Joshi’s judgement is giving credence to the statement of Ashok Singh,
who was produced as a witness towards the end of the trial
- Judgement does not answer the
question who was driving the SUV, if Salman or Singh were not
Trashing the Evidence
What was most striking about Justice Joshi’s judgement is that it went into the evidence that went against Salman in the trial court, whereas the high court, being an appellate court, usually does not delve into the evidence. So much so that it swept aside the submission of Mumbai policeman Ravindra Patil who was Salman’s bodyguard and accompanied him that fateful night 13 years ago when Nurullah was mowed down and four others sustained serious injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of Salman’s SUV by a person who is now unknown.
What is intriguing is Justice Joshi’s own interpretation of Section 32 of the Evidence Act to rubbish the testimony of Patil, the sole witness. He went to the extent of disbelieving Patil’s testimony.
Patil had affirmed under oath that it was Salman alone who was at the wheels on his way home from Rain Bar and that he had warned him against over-speeding. He couldn’t be cross examined on this damning testimony due to his sudden but mysterious death during Salman’s trial. No inquiry was ordered though his mother had expressed apprehension of foul play.
If Justice Joshi’s view is accepted as law, every testimony in dying declaration cases would be of no consequence and a person named for committing heinous offences – bride burning, acid attack or even death due to road accident – could go scot-free.
Credence To Coached Witness
Another erroneous aspect of Justice Joshi’s judgement is giving credence to the statement by one Ashok Singh, who was produced as a witness in defence of accused Salman towards the end of the trial. Singh appeared from nowhere and in typical filmy style offered his neck to save his employer from going to prison. He claimed that he was driving the SUV which went out of control as one of the tyres burst.
.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fmt=webp&width=720)
Justice Joshi has given no answer to the question who was driving the SUV, if Salman or Singh were not. Instead of questioning Singh’s late entry, Justice Joshi held that he is not a “belated witness” even though the trial court had described him as “got up.” Justice Joshi found Singh a reliable witness. Reliance on Patil’s testimony didn’t suit the judgement’s narrative.
Besides, it has never been seen before, except in contempt of court cases, that a high court judge directs an appellant to be present in person at the time of pronouncement of judgement. But Justice Joshi was too eager to convey directly to Salman that he has acquitted him. Why?
Now, with the Maharashtra government showing little inclination to move the Supreme Court in appeal, justice, besides Nururllah, is the second casualty in this case. The government’s sincerity to strengthen the Motor Vehicles Act and check road mishaps in which poor people are crushed to death or incapacitated for life is also at stake.
(The writer is a Delhi-based senior journalist)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)