The Bombay high court today said Bollywood megastar Salman Khan “cannot be convicted” on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution in a hit-and-run case, acquitting him.
Justice AR Joshi, who was making his observations as the open-court dictation of his verdict entered the last lap, said the “prosecution failed to establish the charges (against Khan) on all counts”.
Justice Joshi’s much-awaited verdict in Khan’s appeal challenging his conviction and five-year sentence by the Sessions Court on 6 May, is expected to be delivered on Thursday afternoon in the presence of the actor.
Earlier on Wednesday, the court had ruled that there was no evidence to prove that Khan was drunk or driving the ill-fated Toyota Land Cruiser on 28 September, 2002 when it met with an accident and mowed down one pavement dweller and injured four others.
Comments
It may be noted that constable Ravindra Patil, despite being pressurized by higher ups, and suspended from service, did not change his statement. As a consequence he had to loose his job, his family and life. The session's court judge ruled that the statement of a person on the deathbed HAS to be considered credible. Keeping all these facts aside, the statement of the key witness are brushed aside.
http://www.legallyindia.com/201302013410/Bar-Bench-Litigation/salman-khan-death-by-driving-charges-upped-to-culp-homicide
Going by your alias, I would presume that you value truth. The real truth and nothing else. Well, according to you, what is it? Are you aware of the entire facts and circumstances of the case? Are you aware of what is available on the case record before the Courts (the trial courts and the High Court)? I would think, NO. Well then what are you exactly aware of? And what do you base your information/knowledge on? On what you have learnt from the media over the years! Now comes the question as to whether the reporting by the media is reliable or does it in any manner portray the full and correct picture? I need not answer that question. I leave it to your wisdom (although it may be a risky thing to do :p ). So, what you think you know as 'truth', is what has been gathered from the news reports that you have read over the years and from what people have generally discussed/opined about the issue (without having the actual material with them). Merely because something has been repeated over the years, does not mean that its true. And even if its true, it needs to be proved before the Court for the Court to accept it as such and base its decision accordingly. Basing a decision merely on a popular belief is hazardous. A court of law cannot do that. It has to carefully analyse the evidence before it. The Appellate court has to analyse whether the trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record.
Now coming to the portions of your post - "It is a shame and mockery of the justice system that the statement of eye witness, constable Ravindra Patil is dismissed as unreliable. WHo does the honourable judge consider reliable?"
- Well, show me the provision in the evidence act that says statements of witnesses have to be taken as the gospel truth. You wont find any. Precisely because it is not the gospel truth. Otherwise there wouldnt be a concept of 'trial'. I am hoping you understand this. And according to the HC which is the appellate court, what came out in trial is not properly appreciated by the trial court.
Coming to another portion of your post -- "Salman's driver who suddenly realized after 13 years that he was the one driving? Or his singer friend who is absconding to UK ? Or the actor himself (who was apparently drunk) ?".....
- What is this whole misconception of 13 years?? Do you know when the defense gets the chance to lead evidence? I assume you dont (and so is the case with the layman media).. Well here is the thing. The Defense gets to lead evidence after the prosecution has finished leading its evidence and after the statement of the accused is recorded under Section 313 of CRPC. I am assuming that you must have atleast read the stages in a criminal trial as set out in the CRPC (that assumption is based on the presumption that you are a lawyer. If you rebut it, my whole post is useless :D ). Well, that stage where Defense had to lead evidence came after 13 years! It is not that the defense witness woke up after 13 years! He was always there. And I believe he gave a statement to the police in the very beginning. Prosecution chose not to examine him (for obvious reasons). Did we then expect him to give a statement before the media (which he could have during these 13 years, no doubt) even when the trial was sub-judice? And how appropriate would that be? I leave it to your wisdom. (again a risky thing to do? :D ..I hope not.). And as far as the singer friend is concerned, you must be aware that he too was listed as a prosecution witness before both the trial courts, i.e. magistrate's court as well as the sessions court. But the prosecution chose not to examine him. Read the HC's judgment when it is out which explains this aspect in detail. Those who were present in the court during the dictation would have an idea.
Coming to yet another portion of your post --- "It may be noted that constable Ravindra Patil, despite being pressurized by higher ups, and suspended from service, did not change his statement. As a consequence he had to loose his job, his family and life."
-- pressurized by higher ups? Where did you learn that from? Aah! the media!! :D Well why can't the lay man consider the proposition that he was probably suspended because he gave false statements in trial? That he 'improved' upon his 'ommissions' ? You must be aware of the concepts of improvements and ommissions in evidence.
Coming to another portion of your post (this would be the last, I promise :) ) -- "The session's court judge ruled that the statement of a person on the deathbed HAS to be considered credible."
- Can you please tell us where in the session court's judgment do you find this? Before that, let me ask you if you have even read the sessions court judgment? It doesnt look like you have.
Courts have to appreciate the evidence before it and not go as per the popular sentiment (and rightly so!). No person can be convicted on the basis of such evidence which is saddled with too many infirmities. If it is someone's contention that the accused had a role in messing the evidence, then that is a wholly different issue which is to be proved by trial. You CANNOT assume that the evidence was tampered with. Assumption and presumption in a criminal trial are dangerous. So, before you jump to any misconceived conclusion, I would urge you to get your facts in place. Nevertheless, have some respect! And please consider the impact that scathing comments like yours are likely to have on the minds of young inexperienced lawyers or for that matter on the general layman.
Thanks
If you think the post is illogical, thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. :) peace.
Salman was innocent since beginning, the entire process was just to extort some money from him by legal luminaries of this "Intolerant Country"
Thanks for your very detailed cross examination of my post and bringing up some pertinant points. You seem to be really working overtime to prove the megastar innocent, and the judgement stupendous. I do appreciate your commitment.
..my two cents:
India has the world’s deadliest roads with over 130000 accident deaths each year. Drunken driving has been responsible for over 70% of all fatal road accidents. (don't ask if i get this from media or google).
The people affected are often not the ones who drive drunk, but innocent pedestrians or other drivers/passengers.
You seem to be very concerned about the influence my post could have on common people and young lawyers. What concern do you have for victims of fans who could imitate brand ambassadors (such as the accused), and end up mowing down innocents?
What concern do you have for the constable who did his duty, without any support from his department. You don't seem to care whether he even got witness protection, something that he was eligible for while testifying against a bigshot. (well, the judge didn't care either)
There is no support from an quarter when the lowest rung official in the police dept tries to do his duty, and we (society) expect the police to do a good job.
And lastly, what message do you want to send out to the society? That with enough money you can hire expensive lawyers to twist the story, the witnesses, the law enforcement, legal machinery and lead a pretty normal life for decades until all the people associated with the case either retire or die.
And yes, I do value the truth. And what we see is gross travesty of justice caused by fact twisting.
I do hope that your family and the judge family are safe on roads where such drunken trolls drive with the patronage of our legal system.