"We have been waiting for justice and compensation for the last 13 years but are yet to receive it. I have small children and am worried about their education and how to bring them up," Abdulla added.
On whether he personally saw Khan in the driver's seat when the actor's Toyota Land Cruiser ran over people sleeping on the pavement, killing one and wounding four, he replied in the negative.
"I did not see him driving the car myself, but others did. People have been saying that Salman was driving the car," he said.
The family of another injured Abdul Sheikh, whose legs had got crushed under the actor's vehicle, also voiced dissatisfaction over Bombay High Court judgement and demanded adequate compensation and allowance from the film star.
"The court should also have thought about us...Salman Khan should give us sustenance allowance and compensation," said Reshma, the wife of one of the victims, Abdul Sheikh.
Sheikh, who currently lives in Gonda in Uttar Pradesh with his wife and four children, is facing financial crisis.
"After the accident my husband is not able to work even as a labourer. He can work very little in the agriculture field and there is no other source of income. I am working to somehow make both ends meet...if Salman Khan gives us Rs 10-15 lakh, we will be able to bring up our children," Reshma said.
Salman Khan has already deposited Rs 19 lakh in the Bombay High Court registry to be given to the victims of the mishap as compensation following a court directive on a PIL.
The Bombay High Court (HC ) didn't exactly answer that. Strictly speaking, it was not bound to as the case related only to whether Salman was at the wheel or not on the day of the accident.
The whodunnit can only be answered by the Supreme Court now – if the Maharashtra government goes on appeal.
All that was clear on Thursday were these: Salman was not drinking and driving, and he is not guilty.
Salman's lawyers had argued in the lower court that Nurulla Sharif died when the damaged car fell on him after slipping from a crane called in by the police to tow it away. The actor's family driver, Ashok Singh, had claimed that he was driving the car.
Justice AR Joshi of the HC, too, rejected these arguments. But it didn't go against the actor as he pronounced that "the prosecution had failed in proving that he (Khan) was guilty".
On May 6, the lower court had convicted the actor and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. On Thursday, the HC quashed the order, saying, "The trial court had erred in accepting the prosecution evidence."
As to Salman running away from the scene and whether he would be punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act for not offering medical aid to the person injured by the car in which he was seated, the HC observed: "The mob gathered after the accident was in a furious mood. Some were even carrying rods and other things in their hands. In the considered view of this court, the charge cannot be attracted, considering the then circumstances."
In any case, since the case was only against Khan, the HC cannot now order the arrest of Singh or carry out further investigations.
The case, naturally, had drawn a lot of public attention and many believed that the actor was indeed guilty. Justice Joshi had a few words on this public perception.
"Law does not have any place for general public opinion. It cannot be swayed away by any popular belief that a particular accused, because of his standing in society, could have committed the offence...," he said adding "Mere suspicion cannot be an accepted material to hold a person guilty."
Justice Joshi also said that the probe into the case had various flaws. He said not recording evidences of appropriate witnesses and omissions in injured witnesses' testimony would definitely create a doubt about the involvement of Salman. "The entire evidence was circumstantial in nature," he said.
With these words, he acquitted Salman of all charges in the case.
Salman, meanwhile, was called to appear before the HC on Thursday to hear the judgment. He looked drowsy and non-emotional. Pronounced free, Salman broke down in tears. His brother-in-law Ayush Sharma and sister Alvira Agnihotri were beside him.
Later, he composed himself and smiled at his lawyers.
The actor later tweeted: "I accept the decision of the judiciary with humility. I thank my family, friends and fans for their support and prayers."
For Khan, it means an end to a 13-year ordeal. But all is not over yet. There's still the black buck case.
What's the hit-and-run case?
On September 28, 2002, Salman Khan is alleged to have been in an inebriated state and driving and ran over five persons, who were sleeping outside a laundry in Bandra. One person – Nurulla Sharif – succumbed to his injuries. The other four suffered injuries.
What's the state stand?
Minister of state for home Ram Shinde told mediapersons that the state government would decide whether to approach the SC or not on Monday or Tuesday. He said that since the HC verdict came only on Thursday, the government is yet to receive a copy of the judgment. After receiving it, the state would send it to law department for advice and take a call.
What's the black buck case?
There's a pending case against Salman Khan in Rajasthan for alleged poaching of two blackbucks near Jodhpur on the intervening night of 1-2 oct 1998. Another case under the Arms Act, stating that the arms used by him for the alleged poaching had their licences expired is also registered. In India, blackbuck is a protected animal.
Even in acquittal, the drama did not cease. On Thursday, Salman Khan, busy with his upcoming film Sultan and waiting to hear from his lawyers the verdict in his appeal against conviction, did receive a call, but one that summoned him to the Bombay high court.
Justice A R Joshi, who had for three days been dictating his judgment, announced 11am that a new law requires the actor's presence on the day of the judgment, one that "is now only for formal pronouncing."
The actor had challenged his conviction and five-year sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder for the death of one labourer and injuries to four when his car rammed into a Bandra bakery on September 28, 2002.
On whether he personally saw Khan in the driver's seat when the actor's Toyota Land Cruiser ran over people sleeping on the pavement, killing one and wounding four, he replied in the negative.
"I did not see him driving the car myself, but others did. People have been saying that Salman was driving the car," he said.
The family of another injured Abdul Sheikh, whose legs had got crushed under the actor's vehicle, also voiced dissatisfaction over Bombay High Court judgement and demanded adequate compensation and allowance from the film star.
"The court should also have thought about us...Salman Khan should give us sustenance allowance and compensation," said Reshma, the wife of one of the victims, Abdul Sheikh.
| http://www.mobypicture.com/user/buyjybacklinks |
Sheikh, who currently lives in Gonda in Uttar Pradesh with his wife and four children, is facing financial crisis.
"After the accident my husband is not able to work even as a labourer. He can work very little in the agriculture field and there is no other source of income. I am working to somehow make both ends meet...if Salman Khan gives us Rs 10-15 lakh, we will be able to bring up our children," Reshma said.
Salman Khan has already deposited Rs 19 lakh in the Bombay High Court registry to be given to the victims of the mishap as compensation following a court directive on a PIL.
The Bombay High Court (HC ) didn't exactly answer that. Strictly speaking, it was not bound to as the case related only to whether Salman was at the wheel or not on the day of the accident.
The whodunnit can only be answered by the Supreme Court now – if the Maharashtra government goes on appeal.
All that was clear on Thursday were these: Salman was not drinking and driving, and he is not guilty.
Salman's lawyers had argued in the lower court that Nurulla Sharif died when the damaged car fell on him after slipping from a crane called in by the police to tow it away. The actor's family driver, Ashok Singh, had claimed that he was driving the car.
Justice AR Joshi of the HC, too, rejected these arguments. But it didn't go against the actor as he pronounced that "the prosecution had failed in proving that he (Khan) was guilty".
On May 6, the lower court had convicted the actor and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. On Thursday, the HC quashed the order, saying, "The trial court had erred in accepting the prosecution evidence."
As to Salman running away from the scene and whether he would be punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act for not offering medical aid to the person injured by the car in which he was seated, the HC observed: "The mob gathered after the accident was in a furious mood. Some were even carrying rods and other things in their hands. In the considered view of this court, the charge cannot be attracted, considering the then circumstances."
In any case, since the case was only against Khan, the HC cannot now order the arrest of Singh or carry out further investigations.
The case, naturally, had drawn a lot of public attention and many believed that the actor was indeed guilty. Justice Joshi had a few words on this public perception.
"Law does not have any place for general public opinion. It cannot be swayed away by any popular belief that a particular accused, because of his standing in society, could have committed the offence...," he said adding "Mere suspicion cannot be an accepted material to hold a person guilty."
Justice Joshi also said that the probe into the case had various flaws. He said not recording evidences of appropriate witnesses and omissions in injured witnesses' testimony would definitely create a doubt about the involvement of Salman. "The entire evidence was circumstantial in nature," he said.
With these words, he acquitted Salman of all charges in the case.
Salman, meanwhile, was called to appear before the HC on Thursday to hear the judgment. He looked drowsy and non-emotional. Pronounced free, Salman broke down in tears. His brother-in-law Ayush Sharma and sister Alvira Agnihotri were beside him.
Later, he composed himself and smiled at his lawyers.
The actor later tweeted: "I accept the decision of the judiciary with humility. I thank my family, friends and fans for their support and prayers."
For Khan, it means an end to a 13-year ordeal. But all is not over yet. There's still the black buck case.
What's the hit-and-run case?
On September 28, 2002, Salman Khan is alleged to have been in an inebriated state and driving and ran over five persons, who were sleeping outside a laundry in Bandra. One person – Nurulla Sharif – succumbed to his injuries. The other four suffered injuries.
| http://tinychat.com/buyjybacklinks |
What's the state stand?
Minister of state for home Ram Shinde told mediapersons that the state government would decide whether to approach the SC or not on Monday or Tuesday. He said that since the HC verdict came only on Thursday, the government is yet to receive a copy of the judgment. After receiving it, the state would send it to law department for advice and take a call.
What's the black buck case?
There's a pending case against Salman Khan in Rajasthan for alleged poaching of two blackbucks near Jodhpur on the intervening night of 1-2 oct 1998. Another case under the Arms Act, stating that the arms used by him for the alleged poaching had their licences expired is also registered. In India, blackbuck is a protected animal.
Even in acquittal, the drama did not cease. On Thursday, Salman Khan, busy with his upcoming film Sultan and waiting to hear from his lawyers the verdict in his appeal against conviction, did receive a call, but one that summoned him to the Bombay high court.
Justice A R Joshi, who had for three days been dictating his judgment, announced 11am that a new law requires the actor's presence on the day of the judgment, one that "is now only for formal pronouncing."
The actor had challenged his conviction and five-year sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder for the death of one labourer and injuries to four when his car rammed into a Bandra bakery on September 28, 2002.
No comments:
Post a Comment