Salman Khan’s lawyer Shrikant Shivade on Saturday described the actor’s driver Ashok Singh, who took responsibility for the 2002 incident, as the “most truthful and natural witness” in the case.
The defence lawyer pointed out that Singh’s testimony shows Khan did not flee the scene of the incident on September 28, 2002, which killed one man and injured four others outside a bakery in Bandra.
“He is the most truthful and natural witness... In fact, he has supported what the prosecution has been saying and during his cross-examination, the core of his testimony was not questioned,” Shivade argued before Additional Sessions Judge D.W. Deshpande in the final arguments of the retrial of the high-profile case.
Shivade pointed out how Singh had testified that a mob of around 50-100 people, some armed with rods and stones, gathered there after the incident when Khan, his bodyguard Ravindra Patil and singer Kamaal Khan were present.
“What Singh is saying is correct, truthful... there were actaully four people in the vehicle and Singh was driving it,” Shivade said, adding that the incident occurred due to a burst tyre and not negligence on the part of the driver.
Dwelling on why it took 13 years for Singh to confess, Shivade said he got the opportunity only now — since a defence witness can be examined only after the prosecution completes its case — and Singh gave his statement at the first opportune moment.
He said the Khan family had three drivers — Ashok Singh, Datta and Altaf — and Singh felt particularly bad that Khan had to encounter the problems, especially when he drives him to the court.
Shivade also argued how during the examination-in-chief and cross-examination, Singh had said he had dialled police control No.100 and then went to the Bandra police station.
“There, he was made to sit on the bench and kept waiting... He was interrogated, but his statement was not recorded... Why? The next day Salman was booked for the offence and released on bail,” he pointed out.
The defence lawyer urged Judge Deshpande to discard the evidence of Patil, who had lodged the first complaint in the case, and later passed away due to natural causes during the trial.
“When police reached the accident site and asked Patil about it, he kept quiet. An FIR was lodged later and subsequently he made a supplementary statement.”
He argued that Patil claimed Khan was intoxicated and driving.
“Being a policeman and knowing drunken driving is a serious offence. Why did he not inform the police about Salman’s role when they first questioned him about it?”
He argued that this non-disclosure by Patil could render the subsequent FIR illegal, and in view of the enhanced charge of “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, Khan would be prejudice since Patil is no longer available for cross-examination.
Shivade also contended that there was no similarity between this case and Alistair Pereira hit-and-run case, cited by the prosecution during its final arguments.
