The Bombay High Court has acquitted Salman Khan of all charges, setting aside the session court’s decision.
The court observed that the investigation was “faulty” with scant regard to procedure.
Earlier in the day, the high court had asked Salman Khan to be personally present while the verdict is pronounced.
The verdict was dictated in an open court over the past three days. The Bombay High Court had discarded some crucial evidence which formed the basis of Salman Khan’s conviction by the lower court.
Earlier, the Bombay High Court had observed,
- Site map of the accident provided by Bandra police was prepared after the car was towed away from the spot.
- Infirmities in interview given to Mid-day (newspaper) by key witness Ravindra Patil as claimed by actor cannot be accepted.
Here are some other highlights from the verdict:
Ravindra Patil’s Evidence Will Not Be Considered: HC
In what could indicate the final outcome of the verdict, the Bombay High Court ruled that the sessions court had erred in accepting the late Ravindra Patil’s evidence against Salman Khan. The high court indicated that it won’t consider Patil’s evidence in its verdict.
The lower court had centered its conviction on Patil’s testimony.
The sessions court had on May 6 convicted the 49-year-old actor on the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Aggrieved, Salman filed an appeal in the High Court which had granted him bail before hearing arguments in the case.
In the timeline of event described below, PW stands for prosecution witness.
One of the witnesses saw three people in the car, including Salman Khan, but no further concrete evidence exists.
Given that Salman Khan was seen sitting in the driver’s seat, it follows logically that he drove the car.
Salman Khan entered the JW Marriott Hotel in a land cruiser, though a witness says that he did not see how or when the car left the hotel.
Salman’s friend Kamaal Khan was present at the time.
Post the accident, another witness, PW 3, had stated that he had seen the accused falling on the ground twice and then standing up and running away.
The Waiter Who Served Alcohol to Salman & Co
PW 5 Moloy Baug said he was working in Rain Bar as a waiter and was on duty on the night of 27 September 2002.
According to this witness, Salman Khan and his friends were standing at the bar counter. The witness says he served them Bacardi white rum and cocktails along with eatables.
He says Salman and his friends left around 1:00 am.
Baug’s evidence needed to be examined in the light of the evidence provided by Rain Bar Manager Rizwan Rakhangi who is PW 9.
Corroborating the Evidence
- Rakhangi saw Salman Khan, Sohail Khan and his friends visit the bar.
- According to this witness, Salman Khan was standing as tables were occupied.
- The accused and his friends were served at the service counter.
- According to Rakhangi, Salman Khan came on 27th and left at early hours of 28th September.
The prosecution stated that evidence of this witness is to be seen with prevailing circumstances.
Was it Water or Rum?
During cross examination, it was brought on record that Salman Khan was drinking a clear liquid which looked like water. It was also brought on record that Bacardi Rum looks like water. Prosecution said Salman Khan was drinking Bacardi rum.
Salman’s counsel vehemently submitted that it cannot be presumed that every person visiting a bar necessarily consumes alcohol.
Apart from these witnesses, there must be direct evidence of a waiter that he supplied Bacardi rum and that it was consumed by Salman Khan. But there is no such direct evidence.
The prosecution has also brought four bills while recording the evidence.
These bills were collected subsequently by the officer and there is evidence from PW 9 on this aspect.
The fact that Salman Khan was not at any table renders these bills devoid of evidence.
Conflicting Notes Over Bills
Evidence given by PW 9 shows that the bills were generated on a computer system and the name of the customer or person who pays the amount does not reflect on the bill.
Police had selected and given me four bills out of the bills given to them and then they asked me to sign. I thought what the police did was correct. The glaring anomaly is in the table number of these bills. Four different table numbers are given but only one cover was mentioned.
Rakhangi said Salman Khan and friends left at 1:00 am but the date on the bills shows the day after September 27.
There is no evidence that the payment for the bills were made prior to midnight and the persons left after midnight.
It is logically to be accepted that when a person finishes he has to make payment.
Allegations of Fabricated Bills
There is an anomaly that the bills were made on 27 September.
There is a handwritten endorsement that reads that “there were total eight of us including Sohail and Salman and total of Rs 6,376 was paid by Sohail Khan”.
According to the prosecution, these were duplicate bills obtained from computer systems and the original bills given to the customer which were returned upon payment.
Considering the legal position, it must be said that the trial court has not done the analysis on whether this can be accepted to point to Salman Khan’s drunkenness that night.
It was an attempt by the investigative agency to fabricate it and present it in court to support their claim of consumption of alcohol by the accused.
It is highly objectionable and leads to the conclusion of fabrication of documents and it affects the case of the prosecution.
The endorsement on the bill has not been explained by any witness. There is nothing on record to show how and when the endorsement was taken.
As such, for this reasoning it is required to be mentioned that there is no competent material from PW 5 and PW 9 to establish that Salman Khan had consumed alcohol.
Medical Discrepancies While Collecting Evidence
PW 22 Vijay Salunkhe’s evidence needs to be considered. He was on duty at the police station. IO Shengal directed him to take Salman to JJ Hospital.
PW 18 states that he had drawn blood samples of the accused at JJ Hospital and that it was analysed.
PW 20 Dr Shashikant Pawar states that he took the blood sample from the Salman Khan.
- PSI Salunkhe and one constable came to JJ Hospital along with Salman Khan.
- This witness stated that he took the history from Salman Khan about alcohol consumption and noticed that his breath was smelling of alcohol and that his pupils were dilated.
- The evidence was secured as per procedure.
Discrepancies:
- During cross examination the witness admitted that on the OPD form Salman Khan’s thumb impression was not obtained.
- Another discrepancy was also brought on record regarding the word ‘alcohol’ not being there on the back of the form. Entries were made at the back by inserting carbon paper.
- PW 20 has not explained as to why the word alcohol is missing.
Entire process of collection of blood was casually done by medical officer of JJ Hospital. There is no signature or thumb impression of Salman Khan.
Tampering with evidence is questionable as the doctor stated that the ward boy sealed the samples in the presence of PW 20.
There is anomaly as to how Form B came in the custody of the police when it was produced before the court at the time when the matter was before the metropolitan magistrate.
These anomalies and subsequent evidence of PW 18 needs to be discussed to ascertain if the same sample collected at the JJ Hospital was sent to the Chemical Analysis office.
The discrepancy over the quantity of blood when it was 6 ml at JJ Hospital and only 4 ml was received at the laboratory.
In view of the above, the evidence of PW 18 is of much importance.
(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.)