Cops take note of Salman Khan case

Observations made by the Bombay high court while acquitting actor Salman Khan have found place in the daily internal circular of the Mumbai police.

The joint commissioner, crime has pointed out loopholes in the investigation — as mentioned by the judge while acquitting the actor — for officials to keep in mind in similar investigations in the future.

There are 17 points about the Khan case, written to keep in mind while investigating other cases. These are points where negligence on the part of the officer and lack of proper evidence had given Khan the upper hand. The main flaw in the investigation has been recording of improper statements of witnesses.

Nobody had said that accused Khan was actually driving the vehicle, which buttresses the accused’s claims that the accident in question occurred due to a tyre burst. Further, the tyre was not sent for technical examination to FSL to ascertain or deny this fact. The notice mentioned that electronic evidence (bills from the rain bar) were collected without due certification under section 65(B) of the evidence act. Above said bills and poking tag of JW Marriott Hotel were not seized under the panchnama. There is a hand-written endorsement on the computer extracts in bills of Rain Bar (Exh 50 A to D) But no evidence has been collected as to who and how the said endorsements were taken.

Other than this though, the accused was available from the morning of 29.9.2002, he was taken to JJ hospital in the afternoon for blood collection. Blood samples of the deceased Narula were taken to Bhabha Hospital. However, blood samples of the accused were not taken there and no document was collected by the IO that said the facility was not available at Bhabha. The statement of the constable who brought blood samples of the accused from the lab to the police station was not recorded and he was not examined in trial court.

At two places, alterations were made in the FIR but no explanation was offered about them. Statements of witnesses were not properly recorded.

During the trial, summons were not issued to the proper address of material eye witness Kamal Khan, hence the statement, if the material the witness was not brought on the record before trail court.