Was a weak defence reason behind Salman Khan’s conviction?
Mumbai: Actor Salman Khan was on Wednesday pronounced guilty in the 2002 hit-and-run case after all charges against him were proved right. Salman has been sentenced to 5 years in prison, but was a weak defence reason behind Salman Khan’s conviction?
Hours after being convicted, Justice A M Thipsay granted Salman interim bail after observing that the copy of the conviction order had not been furnished to him by the trial court.
In the 2002 hit-and-run case, one man was killed and four others injured when Khan's vehicle ran over the men, sleeping on a pavement near a South Mumbai bakery.
The actor had claimed he was not at the wheel at the time of the accident on the night of September 28, 2002. While the prosecution had insisted a drunk Khan was driving the Toyota Land Cruiser that ran over the victims sleeping on the pavement outside a bakery in Bandra, the actor claimed it was his driver Ashok Singh who was behind the wheel. Singh has endorsed the defence's claim.
The defence also argued that police had not obtained finger prints from the steering wheel to find out who was driving the vehicle. Prosecutor Pradeep Gharat had alleged that Khan was driving the vehicle after consuming Bacardi rum at a bar, a charge denied by the actor, who said he had just a glass of water.
The defence also disputed the prosecution's contention that there were three people in the vehicle -- Khan, his police bodyguard Ravindra Patil and singer friend Kamal Khan, insisting that driver Ashok Singh was also present.
Read: All charges against you are proved, says judge as teary-eyed Salman listens to verdict
To nail the actor, the prosecution heavily relied upon the statement by Patil, who had said the actor paid no heed to his warning not to drive rashly. Patil, who died during the pendency of the trial, had also said Khan was under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident. He had, however, not said a word about driver Ashok Singh being behind the wheel when the accident occurred. The defence called Ravindra Patil a "liar" and claimed he was asleep in the vehicle when the accident occurred.
Khan's counsel Srikant Shivade had argued that the post-mortem report of the deceased indicated he had died after being crushed. Shivade contended the man was killed when a crane called by the police to lift Khan's SUV could not haul it up at one go and dropped it on the victims, causing injuries.
The defence counsel also claimed the accident was caused after the driver lost control due to a tyre burst. He also said the road was under repair and stones lay scattered all over the place.
Read: Salman Khan hit and run case: Timeline from 2002-2015
The defence lawyer also disputed the prosecution's claim that it had taken Khan 30 minutes to drive his SUV from JW Marriot Hotel to the accident spot at a speed of 90 km per hour after ingesting drinks. The lawyer argued as the distance was not much, it would take Khan only ten minutes to cover it and claimed the case was "false".
The prosecution also alleged that Khan was driving without holding a licence. To buttress its charge, the prosecution produced RTO records to show that the actor had procured a licence only in 2004, two years after the tragedy.
On Wednesday, arguing for a lenient sentence, the superstar's lawyers had urged the judge. "You can't punish him more because he is an actor. If he is to suffer, he should suffer as an ordinary person."
Read: Salman Khan did not run away after the accident: Lawyer
The defence also claimed that, “Salman Khan has a stress-induced health condition which can aggravate if sent to jail.”
The medical report was submitted by a Neurophysician. The defence sought three years of jail time and community service as punishment.
Speaking on behalf of the actor, they told the judge. "Enhance the fine but don't punish me beyond three years."
Khan's lawyers said that if the actor was jailed for a lengthy period, he would not be able to donate to "Being Human", the trust that he runs. They said "majority of the actor's income" is given to the organization that does "a lot of good work."
