Wrapping up its arguments in the 2002 hit-and-run case, the prosecution on Thursday reiterated that an inebriated Salman Khan was behind the wheels of his car that met with an accident thirteen years ago killing one person and injuring four others, and urged the Bombay High Court not to show any leniency to the Bollywood actor.
Concluding his arguments before Justice A R Joshi, Chief Public Prosecutor Sandeep Shinde made a strong case for high court upholding the verdict of the trial court, which had on May 6 this year convicted Salman for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment in the hit-and-run case. “We have presented credible witnesses to establish our case that Salman Khan had consumed alcohol at the Rain Bar & Restaurant, then went to the JW Marriott Hotel at Juhu and while coming back dashed his car into the pavements at A1 Bakery-American laundry at Bandra… it was he, who was responsible for the accident,” the Chief Public Prosecutor Sandeep Shinde told the court.
The Prosecution’s case has been 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.
Quoting some Supreme Court orders, Shinde said: “Drunken driving has become a menace to our society. Everyday drunken driving results in accidents and several human lives are lost, pedestrians in many of our cities are unsafe. late night parties among urban elite have now become a way of life, followed by drunken driving”.
Shinde pointed out that independent prosecution witnesses like the manager at the Rain Bar, the doctor at the state-run JJ Hospital who took Khan’s blood samples, and the Chemical Analyser who analysed these samples, had established that Khan had consumed alcohol on that night. “We have proved beyond doubt an inebriated Salman was behind the wheels of his car when he met with the accident”. However, the actor’s senior counsel Amit Desai contested the final arguments by the CPP, by saying that there were several discrepancies since the beginning in the case. “The Prosecution has presented false witnesses which is why most of them have turned slippery at some point during the trial,” Desai said.
Contesting strongly the evidence adduced against the actor by the Prosecution in the trial court, Desai said: “The Supreme Court has mandated that when one relies entirely upon circumstantial evidence, as has the prosecution in this case, the chain of evidence must be so complete that it unilaterally points towards the guilt of the accused. However, in this case, the Prosecution’s evidence is rife with omissions and contradictions.”