Lawyers state panchnama, site map fabricated to falsely book Salman Khan
Mumbai: The lawyer of Bollywood superstar Salman Khan today argued in the Bombay High Court that the panchnama and site maps were fabricated by police to falsely book the actor under the grave charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the 2002-hit-and-run case.
The HC is hearing an appeal filed by Salman who was awarded a five-year sentence on May 6 after a sessions court found him guilty of ramming his car into a shop in 2002, killing one person and injuring four others sleeping outside.
"The panchnama and site maps are fabricated and cannot be relied upon... These were prepared to invoke section 304 II of IPC (culpable homicide) and also to add the element of 'drunkness and rashness' to make the charges graver", argued Salman's lawyer Amit Desai.
"Not just this, the police and prosecuting agency had ignored the statement of Salman Khan's family driver Ashok Singh who has claimed that he was driving the car on the ill-fated day when the mishap occurred," Desai submitted.
"Ashok Singh (Salman's driver and defence witness) came to you (Bandra police station)...you did not interrogate him, you did not record his statement, you have not cared to investigate," the lawyer said.
Moreover, crucial witnesses like Salman's actor-brother Sohail, who was with him at 'Rain Bar and Restaurant' and singer Kamaal Khan, who was also in the bar and in the actor's car when the mishap had occurred, were not examined in the court, Desai said.
"Besides, police constable late Ravindra Patil's claim that there was a dent in a stutter at A-1 Bakery-American Express Laundry because of the impact of the accident, does not corroborate what Samba Gowda, the panch-witness, has said in his statement," the lawyer argued.
This panch-witness was not at the spot, the lawyer alleged. To prove this, he tabled before the court the damaged portion of the car's bumper and a piece of the shop's shutter.
Desai said "there is a scratch but not a dent or a hole" as claimed by Ravindra Patil -- Salman's then bodyguard and the first informant who lodged FIR after the mishap.
Pointing out discrepancies in evidence, Desai said the prosecution witness-1 during examination-in-chief identifies it (the piece of shutter); however, during cross-examination he says that it has not been taken out in his presence.
PW-26 (police inspector Rajendra Kadam), who was the first to reach the spot, says in cross-examination he did not seize it. PW-26 and PW-27 (Investigating Officer Kishan Shengal) say they do not know who cut it out. These are the other discrepancies, Desai said.
The lawyer said the evidence on record suggested that the car had mounted over the stairs of the shop but its rear wheels were on the ground or hanging. However, PW-I had said he saw blood on the rear wheel of the car, though evidence says that people were sleeping on pavement...in which case the blood should have been seen on the front wheels which went over them.
"It appears that the blood on the rear wheel was due to another event.... may be because of the crane which was called to lift the car," he said adding that the statement of the panch witness cannot be relied upon.
Salman's lawyer said that the impact theory was falsely created by the panch who was not at the site. In another development, Judge A R Joshi rejected the suggestion made by the prosecution lawyers S S Shinde and Purnima Kantharia that he (the Judge) may visit the mishap site at Bandra to get a feel of the place.
"It is too late now...for a trial stage it is useful," Justice Joshi remarked.
"It could still be useful," said Kantharia. Shinde also said "it would give the feel of the situation and give an exact view of the site."
However, Salman's lawyer Amit Desai said site inspection is useful only when the site is intact. "We should refrain from indulging in this now," he said.
The court also concurred with the view of the defense lawyer and decided not to visit the site. Arguments would continue tomorrow.
