In a major relief to Salman Khan in the 2002 hit-and-run case, the Bombay High Court on Thursday overturned the trial court’s verdict of May 6, 2015 convicting the actor and sentencing him to five years in jail, and acquitted him of all charges.
The prosecution’s case, that an inebriated Salman had 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, fell flat, as Justice AR Joshi of the Bombay HC dissected the trial court’s order in a clinical manner.
Justice Joshi held that Prosecutor Pradeep Gharat had “failed to establish the case on all charges” against the actor and that “on the basis of this type of evidence, the appellant-accused (Salman Khan) cannot be convicted...”
Known for his macho image on the silver screen, the actor who will turn 50 on December 27 broke down when Justice Joshi pronounced the verdict in his favour. later in the afternoon, the actor tweeted on his personal handle @BeingSalmanKhan: “I accept the decision of the judiciary with humility. I thank my friends & fans for their support and prayers”.
Reacting to the verdict, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who also holds the State Home portfolio, said at Nagpur that after going through the order, the State Government would decide on whether to challenge the HC’s verdict in the Supreme
Court. “We will examine the court order and decide the further course of action,” Fadnavis said. Justice Joshi also cancelled the bail bond furnished in the trial court and asked Salman to furnish a fresh personal bond of Rs25,000 and directed Bandra police station to return his passport after the latter complied with necessary formalities.
Acquitting Salman in the 13-year-old case, Justice Joshi observed, “Bearing in mind the circumstances, the considered view of the court is that the prosecution has failed to establish its case on all the charges.”
In his elaboration, the Judge noted, “Any strong suspicion, perception or popular belief cannot be enough to hold someone guilty. Prosecution hasn’t brought material on record to prove the case and its entire evidence was circumstantial in nature...according to criminal jurisprudence, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case”.
Giving Salman the “benefit of doubt” Justice Joshi said: “In our case the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. In that case, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused...on the basis of this type of evidence, appellant -accused cannot be convicted”.
Justice Joshi, who had on Wednesday described the actor’s former bodyguard-cum-complainant in the case Ravindra Patil as “not wholly reliable”, observed that the prosecution had not brought on record any material on drunkenness and driving.
Observing that Patil had “improved upon” his statement significantly, the judge said: “In the FIR on September 28, 2012, hours after the incident, he had not said anything about alcohol, but he mentioned this on October 1, 2002 in his supplementary statement....then he also said that he asked the actor whether he would drive the car and also asked him to slow down.”
On Wednesday also the judge expressed doubts over Patil’s evidence and said the prosecution had “failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Salman was driving the car, was under the influence of alcohol and also whether the accident occurred due to bursting of the tyre prior to the incident or tyre burst after the incident”.
He had also taken cognizance of the prosecution’s failure to examine a crucial witness like actor’s singer-friend Kamaal Khan.
Dwelling upon the “improper” appreciation of the evidence on record, the Judge held that the hotel bills produced by the prosecution to show that the actor had taken drinks were “fabricated”.
Joshi, who had observed on Wednesday that the trial court was “carried away” by the impression that Ashok Singh, the family driver of Khans, was late in deposing before the court and claiming that it was he and not the actor who was behind the wheels, found fault with the manner in which the sessions court conducted the trial.
In his order, the Judge noted: “A wrong impression was created in the Sessions Court that Ashok Singh was coming after 13 years and this was also highlighted by agencies and media coming to the conclusion that this is belated defence. The trial court too was carried away with this impression”.
However, the factors that contributed to the HC acquitting Salman of all charges were the discrepancies in the examination of blood samples, right from extraction of blood samples from the accused to its preservation and testing to check the presence of alcohol in the blood.