In a development that is bound to have a bearing on the ongoing retrial in the 2002 hit-and-run case, a doctor on Thursday came up with two conflicting versions as to whether actor Salman Khan had been under the influence of alcohol or not at the time of much-discussed incident, in which a pavement dweller was killed and four others injured.
During the examination by both the prosecution and defence lawyers, Shashikant Pawar told the Sessions Court that Salman smelt of alcohol when he was brought for a blood test soon after the incident, while it appeared he was not under the influence of alcohol when a clinical examination was conducted on him later on the same day.
In his preliminary finding, Pawar recalled that the actor was smelling of liquor when he was brought to him. “However, the patient’s (Salman) pupils were slightly dilated, speech was coherent and walking steps were normal during clinical examination,” Dr Pawar told Special Public Prosecutor Pradeep Gharat in the court.
Deposing before the Sessions Judge D W Deshpande, Dr Pawar said that his was a preliminary finding and the report of chemical analysis of the actor’s blood sample was awaited. Salman had been taken to State-run JJ Hospital shortly after the mishap for necessary examination. Pawar at that time was a doctor attached to that hospital.
The Prosecution’s case is that Salman--allegedly in a drunken state — had driven his Toyota land Cruiser recklessly on September 28,2002, killing a pavement dweller and injuring four others, who were asleep on the same pavement.
Dr Pawar, appearing as a prosecution witness, recalled that the actor had told him that he had not consumed alcohol. Dr Pawar found himself in a fix when he was cross-examined by the actor’s on by Khan’s lawyer Srikant Shivade.
The deposing doctor admitted that he had not recorded in the case papers prepared by him that the actor initially smelt of alcohol. He, however, failed to come up with any reason as to why he had not recorded the fact. Dr Pawar also admitted that the Health Department had not prescribed any clear-cut guidelines as to the cases blood test should be conducted.
The doctor came up another disclosure that he had taken the consent of Salman for a blood test, but had not recorded the same in the case papers. He conceded that the case papers did not bear the signature or thumb impression of the actor.
Dr Pawar, however, replied in the affirmative when he was asked if it was necessary for a doctor to take a consent for blood test from the person involved.
In more contradiction, the doctor said dilation of pupils could be due to many reasons though consumption of alcohol could be one of the factors. “One cannot conclusively say that pupils were dilated due to consumption of alcohol,” he conceded during cross-examination.
When he was shown the case papers, Dr Pawar agreed with the defence lawyer that from the case papers, it could not be said that the actor was smelling of alcohol. The deposing doctor had no reply to offer when he was asked repeatedly asked by the defence lawyer as to why he used the word “alcohol” in the case papers.
He, however, added that it was possible that impression of this word might not have appeared in the carbon copy of the document. Pawar said he had compared the entries of the Emergency Police Register and case papers, verified and certified their contents to be correct.
Responding to a query by the defence lawyer, the doctor however, said it would be incorrect to say the word alcohol was not in the police register or case papers and that it was later added by him in the documents. Pawar’s cross-examination will continue on January 27.
Twenty one witnesses have so far been examined during the re-trial. The Prosecution plans to examine another half a dozen witnesses during the remaining part of the re-trial which is expected to end sometime next month.
Earlier, on December 3, last year, a chemical analyst had told the trial court here on Wednesday that he had found alcohol in the actor’s blood sample during the medical examination carried out after much discussed incident.