Hit-and-run case: Salman's bodyguard Ravindra Patil was not reliable witness, says Bombay HC

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday acquitted Salman Khan in the 2002 hit-and-run case. Khan's former bodyguard, Ravindra Patil, in his version, had stated that the actor was behind the wheel and speeding. The judge, however, was not convinced and said the statement was "not wholly reliable", citing "various anomalies in his testimony".

Justice A.R. Joshi, who is hearing the appeal filed by Salman against his conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, during dictation, said that there are three categories of witnesses in criminal cases. One is wholly reliable, the second is partially reliable, while the third is unreliable and for partially reliable witnesses, there should be corroborative evidence to prove the witness’ testimony. “In the opinion of this court, Mr Patil is not a wholly reliable witness,” said the judge, adding that there has to be corroboration of evidence.

According to the judge, apart from Patil, no other witness had said that the appellant (Salman) was driving the car and that he was drunk at the time of the incident and hence, there is no corroborative evidence to support Patil’s claim. The judge also noted that Patil did not say anything about the actor being in a drunken state in his first statement. The judge is yet to give his ruling on Patil’s evidence and what other testimonies and evidence have been accepted or rejected by the court.

Read: 

2002 hit-and-run case: Actor Salman Khan acquitted of all charges by Bombay High Court

Hit-and-run case: Salman's bodyguard Ravindra Patil was not reliable witness, says Bombay HC

Hit-and-run case: Prosecution tutored witnesses, says Salman's lawyer

Salman Khan 2002 hit-and-run case: Timeline

The other important aspect recorded by the judge was about Salman’s driver, Ashok Singh, who had appeared before the trial court as the lone defence witness and told the trial court that he was driving the car at the time of incident. The judge said that defence witness is as important for a court as the prosecution witness.

Justice Joshi also observed that the prosecution had raised a question about Singh coming before the trial court after a delay of 13 years after the incident. The prosecution had argued before the court as to why Singh kept silent for so many years and he could have approached other agencies if the police did not hear him. Justice Joshi observed that the trial judge was also carried away by this argument but the factual position is that as per procedure adopted by criminal courts, Mr Singh came before the court at the right stage.

Also read: 

Salman Khan hit-and-run: Witness silent on who was driving, argues actor's lawyer

2002 hit-&-run case: Salman's driver corroborates actor's testimony, says was driving car

Prosecution failed to prove Salman Khan was drunk and driving: Bombay HC

All charges against you are proved, says judge as teary-eyed Salman listens to verdict

The judge explained that in all criminal trials where defence witnesses are called, they are called after recording of accused’s statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. In this case before the Metropolitan magistrate, only 17 witnesses were examined. Later on, on application of the public prosecutor, the magistrate added Section 304 (II) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC and committed the case to the Sessions court, so there was no opportunity for the accused to call defence witnesses. In the Sessions court also, there was no possibility of calling defence witnesses before the proper stage so this witness was not examined at a belated stage.

Justice Joshi further said that here, the question of bringing or not bringing Mr Singh was not as important as the question of whether the prosecution had proved its case (that Salman was driving the car in a drunken state). The judge also said that when Patil is no more and Salman is an accused, neither could have given evidence as to who was driving the car. The prosecution case is that there were three persons in the car while the defence is claiming there were four persons in the car, including Singh. In that case, for the prosecution, Kamaal Khan was the right witness to prove who was driving the car at the time of the incident.