Salman's counsel Amit Desai said it would take him a couple of hours to come, but security would have to be beefed up. The judge said he'd take care of that aspect. The actor arrived at 1.30pm. The judge walked in five minutes later and at 1.36pm ended Khan's wait as he stood in the dock with the pronouncement, "Appellant accused is acquitted of all charges."
"The prosecution failed to establish its case on all charges beyond reasonable doubt," the court held. "In summing up on broader aspects as to driving and drunkenness prosecution has not brought material on record which spells out case against accused," said the judge, adding that "almost the entire evidence is circumstantial, except for Ravindra Patil's evidence" which was "weak."
Salman wept on hearing the verdict and left the court around 4.40pm after executing a bail bond of Rs 25,000.
While sessions court judge D W Deshpande had in May held Patil to be an "impartial witness" whose testimony he accepted as clinching, the HC judge held Patil to be "not a wholly reliable witness" and faulted the sessions court for accepting Patil's lower court deposition before his death in 2007 during the trial against
Salman then for a lesser charge. The magistrate had in 2011 sent the case for trial on a graver charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder that attracts up to ten years' jail and the sessions court had begun the trial de novo.
As a partially reliable witness whose evidence would require corroboration, the HC held the prosecution had failed to gather anything cogent or substantial.
Chief public prosecutor Sandeep Shinde, said the judge, has raised three issues to be looked at: "whether Salman Khan was driving, and whether he was drunk or whether it was a 'pure and simple' accident." Senior counsel for the actor Amit Desai had argued that "the investigating agency was bent on collecting evidence to establish charges of drunkenness and driving" and that testimony of witnesses was "fabricated to suit the prosecution case."
The HC judge didn't accept application of the Alastair Pereira judgment or principles from the Sanjeev Nanda verdict to this case and said "in each case of drunken driving and causing death, Section 304-II of IPC may not be applicable."
The judge tackled various aspects of the case, one at a time, to analyze the evidence on drunkenness, driving, tyre burst, charge of culpable homicide, 'late' emergence of a defence witness, admissibility of a testimony made before a magistrate under a different charge by a late witness and absence of direct witness Kamaal Khan.
He spotted pitfalls in evidence marshalled by the prosecution and "unexplained anomalies" and contradictions in evidence that injured witnesses gave in their deposition and their cross-examination conducted by defence lawyer Shrikant Shivade in the trial court.
He held that Salman's family driver Ashok Singh was not a "delayed" witness but had appeared appropriately when his turn as defence witness appeared towards the fag end of the trial and the onus is never on the defence to prove innocence, he said.
From questioning whether the victim Narulla, who died, did so because of the vehicle running over him or falling from a crane, to how Desai "vehemently assailed the crucial evidence of the prosecution's other key witness, injured labourer Manu Khan, who said
Salman fell down twice after getting out of the car as repeating what police had told him to, with citations to show that gaps in testimony cannot be treated as 'minor omissions or contradictions if they go to the root of the matter,'" the judge said the four injured built up no cohesive case against Khan.
Patil's FIR was silent on drunk driving and speeding, observed the judge, but he had added these in a supplementary statement to cops on October 1, three days later. A fact, the HC said, which the state gave no explanation for.
HC held the police displayed a "lack of desire" to examine Salman's friend Kamaal Khan who was in the car that night as witness to corroborate Patil's testimony. Failure to examine him leads to "adverse inference" against the prosecution, said the HC.
Pre-empting perhaps public reactions, the judge brought into his summation the principles of criminal justice.
"This court is not oblivious to opinion of general public. But it is well settled that court must decide on the material before it and procedures laid down in law. It can't be swayed by any popular belief that a person of his standing must have committed the offence and must be held guilty," Justice Joshi said.
First, they were friends. Then, they were not. Now, we hear they are back together. If anybody knows how to milk media attention with their relationship, it’s not Ranvir Singh and Deepika Padukone; it’s Salman Khan and Shah Rukh Khan.
As if eagerly posting on social media about their friendship wasn’t enough (remember those Prem Ratan Dhan Payo/ Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge dubsmash videos?), they are now coming together on a television show to actually talk about their break-ups and patch-ups.
Of course, there is nothing altruistic about it. They are going to talk to Bigg Boss contestants, after all, as part of Shah Rukh’s latest effort to promote Dilwale. A video teasing their appearance is already going viral.
The video takes viewers back to the film that first brought them together on the big screen: Karan Arjun. (Incidentally, like Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, it too completed its 20th anniversary this year.) Shah Rukh and Salman walk on to a set that has an idol of Goddess Kali, like the one in the movie, and claim very cornily that Salman is ‘Prem’ and Shah Rukh is a ‘dilwala’ and both of them only have love in their hearts. Ha!
‘Dosti mein toh unnees-bees must hai na, hoti rehti hai (minor differences are a must in friendship),’ says Salman as Shah Rukh agrees. And they claim that’s why they are coming on Bigg Boss on 19 and 20 December.
"The prosecution failed to establish its case on all charges beyond reasonable doubt," the court held. "In summing up on broader aspects as to driving and drunkenness prosecution has not brought material on record which spells out case against accused," said the judge, adding that "almost the entire evidence is circumstantial, except for Ravindra Patil's evidence" which was "weak."
Salman wept on hearing the verdict and left the court around 4.40pm after executing a bail bond of Rs 25,000.
While sessions court judge D W Deshpande had in May held Patil to be an "impartial witness" whose testimony he accepted as clinching, the HC judge held Patil to be "not a wholly reliable witness" and faulted the sessions court for accepting Patil's lower court deposition before his death in 2007 during the trial against
Salman then for a lesser charge. The magistrate had in 2011 sent the case for trial on a graver charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder that attracts up to ten years' jail and the sessions court had begun the trial de novo.
| http://n4g.com/user/home/backlinkssi |
As a partially reliable witness whose evidence would require corroboration, the HC held the prosecution had failed to gather anything cogent or substantial.
Chief public prosecutor Sandeep Shinde, said the judge, has raised three issues to be looked at: "whether Salman Khan was driving, and whether he was drunk or whether it was a 'pure and simple' accident." Senior counsel for the actor Amit Desai had argued that "the investigating agency was bent on collecting evidence to establish charges of drunkenness and driving" and that testimony of witnesses was "fabricated to suit the prosecution case."
The HC judge didn't accept application of the Alastair Pereira judgment or principles from the Sanjeev Nanda verdict to this case and said "in each case of drunken driving and causing death, Section 304-II of IPC may not be applicable."
The judge tackled various aspects of the case, one at a time, to analyze the evidence on drunkenness, driving, tyre burst, charge of culpable homicide, 'late' emergence of a defence witness, admissibility of a testimony made before a magistrate under a different charge by a late witness and absence of direct witness Kamaal Khan.
He spotted pitfalls in evidence marshalled by the prosecution and "unexplained anomalies" and contradictions in evidence that injured witnesses gave in their deposition and their cross-examination conducted by defence lawyer Shrikant Shivade in the trial court.
He held that Salman's family driver Ashok Singh was not a "delayed" witness but had appeared appropriately when his turn as defence witness appeared towards the fag end of the trial and the onus is never on the defence to prove innocence, he said.
From questioning whether the victim Narulla, who died, did so because of the vehicle running over him or falling from a crane, to how Desai "vehemently assailed the crucial evidence of the prosecution's other key witness, injured labourer Manu Khan, who said
Salman fell down twice after getting out of the car as repeating what police had told him to, with citations to show that gaps in testimony cannot be treated as 'minor omissions or contradictions if they go to the root of the matter,'" the judge said the four injured built up no cohesive case against Khan.
Patil's FIR was silent on drunk driving and speeding, observed the judge, but he had added these in a supplementary statement to cops on October 1, three days later. A fact, the HC said, which the state gave no explanation for.
HC held the police displayed a "lack of desire" to examine Salman's friend Kamaal Khan who was in the car that night as witness to corroborate Patil's testimony. Failure to examine him leads to "adverse inference" against the prosecution, said the HC.
Pre-empting perhaps public reactions, the judge brought into his summation the principles of criminal justice.
"This court is not oblivious to opinion of general public. But it is well settled that court must decide on the material before it and procedures laid down in law. It can't be swayed by any popular belief that a person of his standing must have committed the offence and must be held guilty," Justice Joshi said.
First, they were friends. Then, they were not. Now, we hear they are back together. If anybody knows how to milk media attention with their relationship, it’s not Ranvir Singh and Deepika Padukone; it’s Salman Khan and Shah Rukh Khan.
As if eagerly posting on social media about their friendship wasn’t enough (remember those Prem Ratan Dhan Payo/ Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge dubsmash videos?), they are now coming together on a television show to actually talk about their break-ups and patch-ups.
Of course, there is nothing altruistic about it. They are going to talk to Bigg Boss contestants, after all, as part of Shah Rukh’s latest effort to promote Dilwale. A video teasing their appearance is already going viral.
| http://www.engadineeagles.net/member/320764 |
The video takes viewers back to the film that first brought them together on the big screen: Karan Arjun. (Incidentally, like Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, it too completed its 20th anniversary this year.) Shah Rukh and Salman walk on to a set that has an idol of Goddess Kali, like the one in the movie, and claim very cornily that Salman is ‘Prem’ and Shah Rukh is a ‘dilwala’ and both of them only have love in their hearts. Ha!
‘Dosti mein toh unnees-bees must hai na, hoti rehti hai (minor differences are a must in friendship),’ says Salman as Shah Rukh agrees. And they claim that’s why they are coming on Bigg Boss on 19 and 20 December.
No comments:
Post a Comment