As the hearing on Salman Khan’s appeal against his conviction and the five-year jail term handed to him in the 2002 hit-and-run case resumed on Tuesday after a fortnight, the actor’s counsel and the Prosecution had heated arguments in the Bombay High Court over the contents of the “paper-book”, records and proceedings (R&P) and the procedural requirements.
The “paper book”, a compilation of evidence and related documents prepared by the Registry and made available to both the Prosecution and defence ahead of the start of the hearing of an appeal, became a major bone of contention between the two sides, with senior defence counsel Amit Desai claiming that some crucial documents supporting his client were missing from the “paper book.” Desai said it was difficult to argue the appeal by his client in the absence of the “missing” documents.
“This (paper book) is one sided and bound to cause prejudice. There has to be a sense of responsibility, what we want is strict compliance of manual. Some documents that are not required have been included in the paper-book, while some that are required have been conveniently ignored,” Desai said.
Contesting Desai’s claim, Public prosecutor and Government pleader Sandeep Shinde said that the paper-book had been prepared as per the manual of the Bombay HC.
In an application filed before the court of Justice AR Joshi, Desai alleged among other things that the “paper book” did not contain excerpts of a media interview given by Salman’s police bodyguard and key eyewitness in the case Ravindra Patil, who died of tuberculosis mid way through the original trial. In the interview, Patil had come out with a statement that contradicted the statement he had recorded before a Magistrate.
Desai said that the media interview was very crucial to the hearing considering the stand taken by the defence that Patil was a “fabricated” witness and could not be relied upon.
Patil had, it may be recalled, made submission before a Magistrate that an inebriated Salman was behind the wheels at the time of mishap and that he had warned the actor not to drive rashly or else he would meet with an accident but the actor did not heed to his advice.
Responding to Desai’s claim, Prosecutors Purnima Kantharia and SS Shinde said that though the document referred to by the defence might not be part of the paper-book, it had been included in the “records and proceedings” of the case that the actor’s lawyers could refer the documents as and when required.
Unlike the paper-book, t R&P comprises the entire case papers — including evidence, related documents and all the exhibits that were produced before the trial court.
Kantharia told the court that when the paper-book was finalised by the Registry, two junior advocates from the defence side were present. “The paper-book comes from the trial court. Even if the defence team wants to refer to something outside the paper-book, they can look at the R&P,” Kantharia argued.
Objecting to Kantharia’s contention, Desai remarked: “My learned friend (Kantharia) wants to say that trials are conducted this way. Then she must file an affidavit to this effect.”
Kantharia said that the Prosecution could in no way be blamed for the missing documents in the paper-book, since it was prepared by the court’s Registry and that the question of the Prosecution filing a say did not arise, as it was the defence lawyer who had moved an application before the court.
In response, Desai said: “What we are asking is that the rules to be complied with and nothing else and I am asking certain pertinent things...How can the chargesheet be shown as an exhibitIJ”
“The officer (of the court Registry) might have been over-cautious..This could have been the reason (for not including the document referred to by Desai)… “It (paper-book) should not possibly influence anyone even sub-consciously...that’s why the old jurisprudence says: Appeal is an extension of the trial,”Justice Joshi said.
The Prosecution’s case is that an inebriated Salman had on intervening the night of September 27-28, 2002, rammed his Toyota land Cruiser lexus into the American Express Bakery and laundry at Bandra (west) killing one Nurullah Mehboob Sharif and injuring four others.
On May 8, the Bombay High Court suspended the actor’s sentence in the 2002 hit-and-run case, admitted his appeal against conviction and granted him bail, pending the hearing and disposal of the appeal.