Salman Khan was convicted in May by a lower court in the 2002 hit-and-run case.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday acquitted actor Salman Khan, saying that he cannot be convicted on the basis of the evidence produced in the 2002 hit-and-run case.
Here are 10 main observations made by the judge:
- The burden is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused and this needs to be done beyond reasonable doubt.
- The investigation was conducted in a faulty manner with many loose ends and as such benefit of this had to be given in favour of the accused.
- On the main aspects as to driving and drunkenness, the prosecution has not brought any material evidence which spells out the offence of the accused.
- The trial court erred in accepting bills (of Rain Bar and Restaurant where Salman had gone before the incident) without a 'panchnama' or record of observation by at least five people. The way evidence was collected suggests fabrication.
- Singer Kamal Khan, who was present in car with Salman Khan, should have been questioned.
- Salman Khan's bodyguard Ravindra Patil, key prosecution witness, not 'wholly reliable'.
- There are various shortcomings by the prosecution like not recording evidence of necessary and important witnesses and omissions and contradictions in the evidence of injured witnesses, which definitely create a doubt about the involvement of Salman for offences for which he has been charged. On the basis of such evidence, Salman cannot be convicted.
- It is the duty of the court to analyse the evidence submitted to it and to see that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- The appreciation of evidence done by the trial court while convicting the appellant was not proper and legal, as per the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
- This is not a case where the prosecution has successfully established its charges. The entire evidence of the prosecution was circumstantial in nature.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
