Evidence of Salman Khan’s bodyguard very weak: Bombay HC

“It is to be held that the evidence of Ravindra Patil is of very weak type,” said the Bombay High Court in its judgment while acquitting Bollywood star Salman Khan from all charges in the 2002 hit-and-run case. Mr Patil was a former police bodyguard of the actor and complainant in the case, on whose testimony the prosecution case against Khan depended heavily.

Justice A.R. Joshi in his judgment also observed, “In the considered view of this court, the mandate of Section 33 of Evidence Act is not fulfilled and evidence of Mr Patil — who died in 2007 and was not available for cross-examination by defence during trial in sessions court — cannot be taken as evidence in the Sessions trial.”

Despite this observation, the judge discussed evidence of Patil in detail to come to the conclusion that his statement does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the actor was under the influence of alcohol and he was driving the car while it met with an accident.

The judge also noted, “The date October 1, 2002, is significant as on that date, the supplementary statement of Mr Patil was recorded. There was nothing brought on record as to what was the occasion for supplementary statement when the FIR was lodged. In fact, what was inserted by way of supplementary statement is the element of consumption of alcohol.”

The judge also criticised the prosecution over the defence witness Ashok Singh, Khan’s driver, who claimed before the trial court that he was driving the car at the time of the incident and the car met with an accident owing to tyre burst and not because of negligence.

The judge criticised the prosecution for making statements before the court as to why the driver came before the court 13 years later when he did, in fact, come at the right stage and there was no possibility for defence to call him before the court before statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC.

However, the court order was silent on accepting or rejecting Mr Singh’s statement that he was driving the car. The judge said, “Here, it is not a question of believing or disbelieving a defence given, but here, the question is whether the prosecution has established its case as to driving by the appellant, that too, drunken driving. As such, the evidence of defence witness is to be viewed with such caution to see whether the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt.” About not examining singer Kamal Khan, the judge said, “No examination of Kamal Khan may apparently mean that he was withheld by the prosecution.”