Tearing into the prosecution’s evidence in the 2002 hit-and-run case on multiple counts, defence lawyer Shrikant Shivade on Thursday claimed that the blood sample sent for test was not that of Salman Khan and questioned the ‘professional competency” of the chemical analyst who performed the test.
On a day when he also questioned the expertise of an RTO who “inspected” the actor’s land Crusier lexus car involved in the actor in flat 20 minutes, Shivade charged that the Prosecution had failed to prove that the blood sample extracted from the actor contained alcohol to the tune of 62 mg per 100 ml.
“Rules were violated... Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove that the blood sample that contained alcohol to the tune of 62 mg per 100 ml was indeed extracted from the actor. As a result, we have a strong reason to believe that the blood sample in question was not extracted from the actor,” Shivade said, continuing his final arguments for the third day.
Shivade also brought to the attention of the court that the Kalina-based Forensic Science laboratory, where the actor’s blood samples were analysed, did neither have certification of the International Organisation for Standardisation nor accreditation of National Board of Accreditation. He, however, hastened to add, “I am not saying that this is not the best…we have to look at the available best”.
Questioning the “professional competency” chemical analyst Dattatreya Balachander, the defence lawyer charged that the analyst concerned did not have the necessary knowledge to conduct the tests. He said that Balachander had failed to explain to the court the process of tests on the actor’s blood samples
“Going by the manner in which he answered my questions during cross-examination), the analyst concerned does not know the difference between quantitative and qualitative analysis. Nor does he know the difference between isometric and idometric tests. What kind of a man are we dealing withIJ. How much we can rely on himIJ,” Shivade asked.