In its effort to strengthen its case in the ongoing re-trial of Bollywood actor Salman Khan in the much-discussed 2002 hit-and-run incident, the prosecution has moved the city sessions here on Monday, saying that it wanted to lead the evidence of two crucial witnesses, whose statements had been recorded in the original case. The two crucial witnesses, whose evidence that the prosecution wants to lead with, are: Ravindra Patil, the actor's former police body guard, and one Dr Sanap who had conducted the post-mortem of a person killed in the incident.
Both these witnesses are not available currently for deposition before the court of Additional Sessions Judge D W Deshpande. While Patil died of acute bilateral tuberculosis, at a city civic TB hospital midway through the original trial on October 3, 2007, Dr Sanap is not in a position to depose before the court as he is currently settled in the United States. In an application moved before the trial court, Public Prosecutor Pradeep Gharat explained the reason behind the Prosecution’s inability to produce the two crucial witnesses for ex-examination before the court.
In substantiation of his contention, the Public Prosecutor produced the death certificate of Ravindra Patil, which stated that he had died of Tuberculosis. Salman's lawyer Srikant Shivade admitted that the complainant had died but disputed the theory that he had died of TB. The Prosecution’s contention is that Ravidra Patil, who had died during the original, had deposed before a Magistrate, saying that that he had warned Salman not to drive rashly or else he would meet with an accident but the actor did not heed to his advice.
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. Gharat told the court that the second crucial witness, whose evidence that the Prosecution wanted to lead with was a doctor settled in the United States who had expressed his inability to present for examination during the ongoing re-trial of Salman.
It may be recalled that a woman constable who deposed before the trial court on February 18 that she had tried to serve summons to a doctor who had conducted the post mortem of a person killed in the hit-and- incident. “When I contacted the doctor (Dr Sanap) who conducted the post-mortem of a person killed in the incident, told me over telephone that he had retired from service and settled down in USA. I then informed my senior accordingly,” the woman police constable told the court.
The statements of both these crucial witnesses had been recorded by a Magistrate in the original trial.
Midway through the trial of the actor under section 304-A of IPC (causing death by negligence), the Bandra Metropolitan Magistrate had on January 31, 2013 allowed the Prosecution to revive the charge of “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” for allegedly killing a pavement dweller and injuring four others in the hit-and-run case. Through his January 31 order, the Bandra Magistrate committed the case to the city sessions court for a re-trial trial.
The original trial had begun in the Magistrate’s court in 2006. During the trial, the Prosecution had in all examined 17 witnesses. Meanwhile, the trial court would give its ruling the Prosecution’s application seeking to lead the evidence of two witnesses, including the deceased bodyguard of Salman, on February 27. On the same day, the Judge D W Deshpande is also expected to pass an order on the Prosecution's plea seeking a direction to accused Salman Khan to produce his driving licence. Salman is facing a re-trial in the hit-and-run case before the city sessions court for an aggravated charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder invoked against him midway through the earlier trial on December 5, 2013.
Salman, against whom fresh charges were framed in the court of Judge U B Hejib on July 24 last year, is being tried under section 304 (II) of Indian Penal code – a more severe charge than the one of causing death by negligence (section 304-A of IPC) that he was tried for earlier –and other charges, including the ones framed against him under section 279 of IPC (rash driving) and the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Bombay Prohibition Act.