A little over 13 years after Salman Khan's reckless driving claimed the life of a labourer sleeping on a pavement in Bandra, the Bombay High Court has acquitted the actor of all criminal charges that he had been found guilty of by a trial court in May. Justice Joshi said “this court has come to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring material on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant (Salman Khan) was driving and under the influence of alcohol, also, whether the accident occurred due to bursting (of tyre) prior to the incident or tyre burst after the incident....” The actor wept for a few minutes after the verdict was given.
Khan had filed an appeal in the HC against the May 6 conviction by a Mumbai sessions court for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and a five-year sentence given as punishment. The Bombay HC granted him bail on that same day and the actor, who's out on bail, was called to court for the pronouncement. The High Court had begun its judgement dictation on Monday, seven months after the guilty verdict and sentence had left the actor stunned.
A labourer died and four other people were injured when the actor's Land Cruiser rammed into a Bandra laundary and bakery in wee hours of September 28, 2002. Justice Joshi in the open court, analysed the evidence of several witnesses, including the four injured and another person who said road work was going on during the accident, observed how some of it “probablised the defence theory” of there being four people in the vehicle, not three as the prosecution said, and of Salman not being drunk, of the tyre having burst before the crash, of the left front door being jammed, of him not being in the driver's seat.
The judge said the testimony of the injured, who had, “after 12 years” said that he had seen the actor fall down twice before running away, to suggest drunkenness, has several “omissions” and examined and analysed them “in juxtaposition with other evidence such as the FIR and his police body guard Patil's statement which did not mention alcohol.” He said, “evidence will be analysed in detail to ascertain whether prosecution has attained that standard of proof which is required to be established especially to prove the charge of s 304-II of the Indian Penal Code (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).”
Patil died in 2007, well before the case was tried afresh on higher charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Indian Penal Code, as opposed to the lesser charge of rash and negligent driving which was being tried before the magistrate in Bandra until 2011. Patil's evidence was crucial, as the prosecution case primarily rests on his evidence. Otherwise it was the evidence of injured victims and Rain Bar staff that the prosecution was relying on, to prove its case that Salman was driving drunk.
The judge analysed the evidence of Ashok Singh, the driver who said he was driving that night and that the tyre had burst before the incident, and held that he was not a “belated witness” as was the impression created by the prosecution and the media. The trial court had discarded Singh as a “got up witness” but the HC said in criminal law it is the duty of the prosecution to establish its case completely and the onus is not on the defence to prove he didn't do it.
