Salman Khan hit-and-run case: Why was Kamaal not examined, asks actor’s lawyer | bollywood | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Aug 17, 2017-Thursday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Salman Khan hit-and-run case: Why was Kamaal not examined, asks actor’s lawyer

Actor Salman Khan’s lawyer in the 2002 hit-and-run case told the Bombay high court (HC) on Tuesday that singer Kamaal Khan, who was with the actor on the night of the accident, was not an absconding witness but wanted to depose in the case.

bollywood Updated: Nov 25, 2015 14:55 IST
Bollywood actor Salman Khan attends a promotional event for his upcoming movie 'Prem Ratan Dhan Payo' in Mumbai, India, Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2015. The film is scheduled to be released on Nov. 12. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)
Bollywood actor Salman Khan attends a promotional event for his upcoming movie 'Prem Ratan Dhan Payo' in Mumbai, India, Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2015. The film is scheduled to be released on Nov. 12. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)(AP)

Actor Salman Khan’s lawyer in the 2002 hit-and-run case told the Bombay high court (HC) on Tuesday that singer Kamaal Khan, who was with the actor on the night of the accident, was not an absconding witness but wanted to depose in the case.

The prosecution was reluctant to question Kamaal as a witness and so, it lied all through the trial about its attempts to question him, Salman Khan’s counsel Amit Desai told the HC while responding to the 18-page reply submitted by the prosecution on Monday.

In the reply, special public prosecutor Sandeep Shinde had submitted that the police and state made repeated attempts to reach out to Kamaal after the accident, but he evaded them by fleeing first to Lonavala and then to London.

However, Desai told the HC that the prosecution never thought it fit to question Kamaal after the accident, even though he had appeared before the magistrate’s court thrice in 2008 — on August 25, September 10 and November 12 — to seek permission to visit the UK.

Desai cited documents to show that during these appearances, Kamaal had submitted details of his residential addresses and phone numbers in Mumbai and London.

“Yet, the prosecution waited to issue the two summons to Kamaal Khan for questioning till June 2014. And even then, it sent these summons to a wrong address in Mumbai, telling the sessions court that this was the last known address they had for Kamaal Khan. The prosecution never bothered to check the magisterial court’s records to verify the Mumbai address. Neither did it think it fit to contact him at the London contact address and phone number, both of which he has not changed since the accident,” Desai said.

He said in 2003, a look-out notice was i ssued against Kamaal.

“In such a case, the immigration department must maintain records of details of his movement in and out of the country. But the prosecution has made no attempts to get the details, or issue a non-bailable arrest warrant against him. It is because, if Kamaal Khan is put in the box, the entire testimony of constable Ravindra Pati, the prosecution’s star witness, would go out the window,” Desai added.

Shinde, however, told the HC the prosecution could not be expected to “go around the world looking for witnesses.”