Charging that Salman Khan’s driver Ashok Singh had “lied” to the court that it was he and not the actor who was behind the wheels at the time of 2002 hit-and-run incident, the Prosecution on Monday made a strong case for rejecting Singh’s evidence and acting against him for perjury (giving false evidence under oath).
On a day when it cited the evidence of witnesses to dispute Salman’s claim that he was not under influence of alcohol and claimed that he had Bacardi white rum on that night, the Prosecution tore into the evidence provided by the actor’s driver and said that Singh’s statements and behaviour were unacceptable.
“Ashok Singh is a liar. He has intentionally given false evidence to save Salman Khan. He (Singh) is liable to be prosecuted for perjury, as there are circumstances to suggest that he was telling a lie,” Special Public Prosecutor Gharat told the trial court.
As Salman listened keenly to the final arguments made by Prosecution, Gharat pleaded the court to discard the evidence provided by the actor’s driver on the ground that no other witness had corroborated the latter’s statement and that the defence had introduced “this piece of evidence” after the Prosecution closed its case and the accused made his submission before the court under section 313 of Cr.PC.
Sessions Judge DW Deshpande, meanwhile, rejected the actor’s plea for exemption from appearance on Tuesday and asked Salman to remain present in the court when the Prosecution concludes its final arguments in the court.
Maintaining that Singh’s statements and behaviour were neither natural nor acceptable, the Prosecutor said: “On one hand, the defence witness (Singh) told the court that he had chosen to depose before the trial court after being advised to do so by the actor’s script-writer father Salim Khan. On the other, Salman’s lawyer had told the court a few days prior to Singh’s deposition that he would depose before the court as a defence witness”.
Contesting Singh’s claim that if he had kept all these years, he did not know what to do nor was he aware of the court procedures, the Prosecutor said, “During the past 12 years, the witness did know what to do. Nor was he restless despite knowing that the actor had been booked wrongly. He was only thinking all these years that the actor had been wronged. He still didn’t go to any understandable person or lawyer to know what he could do. Is this natural, acceptable conductIJ”
‘Actor had rum before incident’
Seeking to nail Salman Khan’s claim that he was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of 2002 hit-and-run incident, the Prosecution on Monday cited the evidence provided by the witnesses in the case and claimed that the actor had consumed Bacardi white rum sometime before the much-discussed mishap.
Presenting his final arguments in the re-trial of Salman in the September 28, 2002 hit and run case, Special Public Prosecutor Pradeep Gharat told the court that there was evidence on record to confirm that the actor, his brother Sohail Khan and their friends singer Kamaal Khan and fashion designer Vikram Phadnis had ordered white rum, cocktails, chicken and prawns.