The Bombay High Court has, in its verdict acquitting Salman Khan of all charges in the 2002 hit-and-run case, has said that the Mumbai Police carried out the investigations in a “careless” and “faulty” manner with scant with regard to the established procedure laid down in law for establishing the chain of evidence when the case is based on the biological evidence.
In his 305-page judgement of December 10, 2015 on the actor’s appeal against the trial court convicting him and handing him a five-year sentence which was uploaded on the high court’s website on Wednesday night, Justice AR Joshi said: “Firstly, though the investigation might be impartial, it was conducted in such a careless a faulty manner with scant regard to the established procedure laid down in law more particularly, the procedure required for establishing the chain of evidence when the case is based on the biological evidence. Secondly, the investigation was so conducted to loosen the prosecution case”.
Similarly, the Judge has been equally harsh in criticism of the trial court for its lack of “proper” and “legal” appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the case. “lastly, in the considered view of this court, the appreciation of the evidence as is done by the trial court in the present matter is not proper and legal as per the settled principles of Criminal Jurisprudence”.
“For example, it can be said without giving all the details that the trial Court had erred in accepting the Bills which were recovered without there being any panchnama and the bills altogether saddled with the fabrication,” the Judge said, while referring to the “fabricated’ bills of Rain
Bar where Salman and his friends were alleged to have consumed to have liquor before the mishap.
“Secondly, evidence of Ravindra Patil (the bodyguard of Salman Khan who was accompanying him in the car on the night of mishap) was not marshalled properly and thirdly evidence to establish biological chain regarding alcohol consumption is not appreciated as per the mandate of law. As such, consequently, it must be said that this is not a case in which the prosecution has successfully established its case for all the charges and as such resultantly.” the judge observed.
Giving a benefit of doubt to the actor, the Judge observed in his verdict: “The benefit of every reasonable doubt which arises out of the evidence adduced, must necessarily be given in favour of the accused”.
“In this case, considering the various weaknesses in the case of the prosecution, various shortcomings such as non-examination of necessary and appropriate witnesses, the omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the injured witnesses which go to the root of the matter, definitely a doubt has arisen as to the involvement of the appellant for the offences with which he is charged. On the basis of this type of evidence the appellant cannot be convicted though the apparent perception might be different as appearing in the mind of a common man,” the Judge said.
Alluding to the unproven charge against the actor was behind the wheels at the time of the mishap and that he was under the influence of alcohol at that time, the Judge said, “Now, in summing up, it must be mentioned that on the main broad aspects as to the driving and drunkenness the prosecution has not brought that material on record to point out only the guilt of the appellant —accused as almost entire evidence of the prosecution is in the nature of circumstantial evidence though the evidence of Ravindra Patil can be considered as a evidence of a direct nature, still this
Court has earlier held as to its inadmissibility and has subsequently also marshalled his evidence as to his evidential value”.
The Prosecution’s case was that 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
Maintaining that the high court was not oblivious to the perception or the opinion of members of general public, the judge said, “While arriving at the above findings this Court is not oblivious of the perception or the opinion of members of general public. However, it is well settled principle that a Court must decide the case on the material brought on record and which can be accepted as an evidence as per the procedure laid down by law.
The court shall not be swayed away by any popular belief that a particular person considering his avocation, profession or standing, must have committed such an offence and must be held guilty”.
“The Court is expected to be impervious to the pressure from the public and also from the Media. It is for good reasons that the law of Evidence has no place for the general public opinion as a factor that should weigh with the Court while deciding a case at hand,” the judge observed.