Salman Khan acquitted
hit-and-run case
AGENCIES
The Bombay High Court yesterday has acquitted actor Salman Khan in the 2002 hit-and-run case that left one dead and four injured, report agencies.
Justice A R Joshi said, the May 6 order by the Sessions Court (convicting Salman for 5 years of rigorous imprisonment) has been quashed and set aside. The Personal bonds paid by the actor has to be returned to him.
Actor Salman Khan and sister Alvira were present while the court disposed off the appeal.
The court said prosecution has not been able to prove that actor Salman Khan was drunk or was even driving the car that killed one and injured four others.
The court said, Prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellant (Khan) of driving and that too under the influence of alcohol. The court went on to say the prosecution has not brought material on record which makes out a case against him.
The court is not oblivious of the perception of general public that the court must decide the case. It is settled priniciple that the court must decide the case on material that is admissible as evidence under procedure of law. Law of Evidence has no scope for general public opinion. The court said The evidence presented by prosecution has not been able to reach the level which in view of this court is needed to establish the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Any strong suspicion cant be enough to hold anyone guilty.
The court added there are shortcomings by prosecution in not recording crucial evidence and there have been omissions and contradictions in the testimonies of injured. The gathering of evidence it seems has loose ends which benefits the accused.
The court said while we are aware of the public opinion, it is a settled opinion that courts need to decide on law. The court also said it cannot be swayed by profession and status of the appellant and assume guilt.
The court said, that the appreciation of evidence done by trial court is not proper and legal in accordance with principles of criminal jurisprudence. The prosecution has failed to establish all charges against appellant (Salman) and hence on the basis of this type of evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted.
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.
