Bombay High Court has pronounced Salman Khan’s acquittal and it stayed the top focus in the primetime slot.
Even as bollywood and Salman’s fans rejoiced, several questions remained. One stood out from the lot which was “If not Salman, who killed Nurullah” and that was the topic on CNN-IBN.
Lawyer Abha Singh strongly pushed for answers on that one. She said,
We don’t even know who drove the car. Why did the court not order a probe on driver Ashok Singh? This is a mockery of the judiciary. The country knows who was driving and he goes scot-free.
She also questioned why expert opinion and the chemical analysis of Salman’s blood samples were not taken into account by the court.
Countering her was Zafar Sareshwala, Salman’s family friend. Defending the star, he said that Salman had gone to the police station immediately. He was corrected by CNN-IBN’s Zakka Jacob and explained that immediately meant two days later.
“Now when the judgement is delivered, I don’t think we should cast aspersions on the judges,” said Sareshwala.
Zakka Jacob defended his argument saying no one was casting aspersions but merely voicing public opinion. He said, “People are asking questions because he is rich and has a battery of lawyers”.
At this point the Legal Affairs Editor of the channel Ashok Bagriya jumped in and explained where he thinks the court erred.
The court has primarily has erred in coming to a conclusion. If we go into the facts, the biggest error is rejecting the statement and evidence of Ravindra Patil entirely.
IBN’s Bombay Bureau Chief Smitha Nair, who was in the court while the judgement was being read out explained, why the court had chosen to do so. She said,
The court has said that the Evidence Act mandates that substantive matters (in the testimony) need to be the same at all times. When the case was in the metropolitan court, the charges were not as strict and given that these had changed when the matter reached the high court, the trial court has erred in admitting Patil’s testimony.
Smitha also points out that the judge observed,
“He (Ravindra Patil) made no reference to fact that Salman was drunk that night and that he had dissuaded Salman from speeding. These are improvements (in the statement) and hence cannot be considered by the court at this later stage.”
Meanwhile, Shobhaa De joined the conversation and supported the judgement.
De said it was important to respect the judgement because the judge had gone into the case details thoroughly.
We need to acknowledge that the evidence provided by the police was shabby and the judge went according to what the law says. We must admit that Salman brought the best legal brains in the country at a later time and then they changed the case completely.
The Other Battery of Lawyers
The topic of discussion was the same on Times Now.
The panel was a group of lawyers who contradicted each other.
Sujay Kantawala argued for the judiciary. According to him, this judgement will, hopefully, give the police department the necessary punch to be careful with future investigations.
He said,
The point is simple. Why take pot shots at the judgement? The judge took his time and considered all aspects. Here is a well-reasoned judgement. Let the police take a cue from this and not repeat these mistakes
Aniket Nigam, on the other hand, hit out at the system for taking over a decade to pronounce a verdict. He also took up one of the allegations that the loopholes in the probe by the police was intentional.
Are we proud of our system that we take 13 years? There have been discrepancies (in the police probe) but to call it intentional is a bit much of an assumption.
Congress MP and actor Nagma was on the panel too. She was meant to be defending Salman Khan but she had little to say because, by her own admission, she was not “learned enough”.
(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.)