Bombay High Court judge says prosecution has failed to establish a case against Bollywood actor Salman Khan.
Advertisement
“On the basis of evidence submitted by the prosecution, Salman can not be convicted”, the judge added. The High court reprimanded that the prosecution could not prove that the actor was drinking and moreover driving the vehicle on the accident night, saying that the prosecution has failed to produce before the court a connecting chain of events.
Hearing this, Khan, attired in a black and white checkered shirt and jeans, lowered his head, sighed, and then looked up again at the judge from the witness box. 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 prosecution is likely to make a final appeal against the verdict in the Supreme Court. In the FIR filed soon after the mishap, he did not implicate Khan but in the statement he said that Khan was driving under the influence of liquor, Indian media reported. He also said, “Appreciation of evidence by trial court is not proper and legal as per settled principles of criminal jurisprudence”. “The fault doesn’t lie in the court or in Salman Khan the fault lies in the government”, he added.
Holding that the evidence was “weak”, Justice Joshi dwelt upon the shortcomings in the prosecution’s case, including not recording evidence of important witnesses and also omissions and contradictions in the evidence of injured witnesses.
In the early hours of September 28, 2002, the actor’s Toyota Land Cruiser crashed into five men sleeping outside the American Bakery in Bandra. The case has seemingly not interfered with his career as one of Bollywood’s most bankable stars, idolised by millions. Salman’s driver Ashok Singh was examined as the defence witness who claimed that he was driving the auto when the incident happened.
Advertisement
Salman, clad in a dark, checked shirt and jeans, showed no emotion while the verdict was being pronounced, but was later seen quietly wiping tears from his eyes in the court. Evidence that the actor was drunk was also repeatedly cast in doubt-the High Court, in the latest judgment, too, did not feel that a restaurant bill, charged to the actor, that included alcoholic drinks, was adequate.
