While Bollywood actor Salman Khan has been sentenced to five-year imprisonment by a Mumbai Sessions Court for culpable homicide for killing a homeless man in the 2002 hit-and-run case, senior lawyers on Wednesday termed the verdict as “harsh” and said that judgement could have been more pragmatic. However, some lawyers justified the sentence as Salman Khan was drunk and without a valid driving licence.
Shilpi Jain, a Supreme Court lawyer, said, “It was a very harsh punishment under Section 304 II of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), he could have been let off with a hefty fine. Courts should be more liberal and pragmatic. It was an accident. In Salman’s case, the court could have asked him to pay more compensation.”
Justice DW Deshpande held the Bollywood actor guilty of all counts in the 13-year-old case, rejecting Salman Khan’s claim that his driver Ashok Singh was at the wheel when the accident took place.
“The man who died is survived by his young child. The compensation could have helped his family raise his child, educate him and give them a better life. In Section 304, one can inflict fine which could have been a more pragmatic approach to this case,” she added.
“Justice is synonymous with harsh conviction. This judgement is a way to prove that the rich cannot buy the judicial system. And the rich and famous are at a disadvantage because of media pressure moreover leading to the judges to prove that the judiciary is above all,” Jain said.
Whereas other lawyers feel that the verdict is a “strong” judgement. “The verdict would not have been any lesser by a sessions court judge. However the span of punishment is likely to be reduced by High Court under Section 304 part II, it is not a harsh punishment. Things like influence of alcohol and no possession of driving licence go against the convict,” said Geeta luthra, senior advocate.
“The punishment could not have been lesser. He was drunk and that’s why Section 304 part II was imposed,” said Puneet Mittal, criminal lawyer.