In the 2002 hit-and-run case involving actor Salman Khan, the defence continued its arguments, maintaining its stand that Ashok Singh, the actor’s driver, was driving the car and the accident happened because of a tyre burst.
Shrikant Shivade, the defence advocate, said the prosecution’s accusation that the car was being driven at a high speed is false, as the air bags were not deployed. “The car was not moving at a high speed. Singh was driving the car and due to tyre burst, the car was pulled to the left,” said Shivade.
Negating the prosecution’s case of the car travelling at 90km per hour, Shivade said there is no evidence to differentiate between damages caused after the accident [due to pelting of stones] and damages caused because of the accident.
“The windshield damage on the right side appears to be caused by stones and not because the car hit the building. The bonnet is also intact,” Shivade said.
Khan’s advocate added, “The damage negates the prosecution’s version of the case, that the car was being driven at a speed of 90km per hour. If the speed was 90km per hour, the damages would have been worse.”
“If an alcohol test is conducted with an apparatus, which hasn’t been cleaned properly after a previous test, there is a high possibility the second test result will also be positive,” he said.
Shivade said there has been violation of regulations during the alcohol test and hence the prosecution has failed to prove that the actors’ blood contained alcohol.
“Can a man who studied till Class II appear for a Bachelor of Science (BSc) exam? Similarly, if the RTO officer has been trained to check TATA Indica, can he examine imported cars? He is a novice and had never examined an imported car before,” Shivade said.