Salman Khan’s lawyer: Evidence of eyewitness introduced at fag end
Continuing to attack the prosecution in the 2002 hit-and-run case, the lawyer of Bollywood actor Salman Khan on Tuesday argued in the Bombay High Court that it had relied on evidence of key eyewitness Ravindra Patil at the fag end of the trial.bollywood Updated: Oct 15, 2015 14:16 IST
Continuing to attack the prosecution in the 2002 hit-and-run case, the lawyer of Bollywood actor Salman Khan on Tuesday argued in the Bombay High Court that it had relied on evidence of key eyewitness Ravindra Patil at the fag end of the trial. Defence lawyer Amit Desai questioned the move of the prosecution to inform the trial court at the fag end of the trial that Ravindra Patil, the then police bodyguard of Salman, died but they wanted to rely upon his evidence. “This they (prosecution) should have done when the trial commenced as Patil was a key witness and his statement had a great significance,” said the lawyer while arguing the appeal filed by Salman against his conviction in this case.
“Patil is the first informant as an eye-witness but he is the last witness to be examined...this goes contrary to what the Supreme Court has opined,” Salman’s lawyer said.
The Supreme Court said that unfolding the narrative of the prosecution case must be through the first witness or first set of witnesses, Desai submitted. “On September 28, 2002, when the mishap occurred, based on his (Patil’s) statement, the FIR was lodged, in which he does not speak about Salman consuming alcohol, while on October 1, when his supplementary statement was recorded, he talks about Salman taking drinks,” the lawyer argued.
Justice A R Joshi is hearing the appeal filed by Salman against the order of the trial court convicting him on May 6 for ramming his car into a shop, killing one person and injuring four who were sleeping on pavement. “In order to ensure that there is a fair trial, the prosecutor (Pradeep Gharat) should have informed the court in the beginning of the trial that key witness Ravindra Patil had passed away and the prosecution wishes to include his evidence,” Desai said.
The prosecutor is an officer of the court and he should work in the interest of justice and not just to seek a conviction order. “The credibility of witness has been impeached,” argued Desai. If Patil’s evidence was taken on record in the beginning of the trial, then other witnesses would have been cross-examined on the basis of what he had said in his statement before a magistrate. By not doing so, prejudice had been caused to the defence, Desai submitted. Patil died of TB in October 3, 2007. However, prior to that his statement has been recorded before a magistrate’s court in Bandra. Sessions Judge D W Deshpande, who conducted the trial, allowed his evidence to be included.