A Sessions Court conducting the 2002 hit-and-run trial involving Bollywood actor Salman Khan on Thursday said that before giving the judgment in the case on May 6, it would decide on the same day an application seeking action against police for perjury (giving false evidence).
Khan is facing charge of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' after he allegedly rammed his Toyota Land Cruiser into a bakery shop on September 28, 2002, in suburban Bandra killing one person and injuring four others who were sleeping outside.
The application, filed by activist Santosh Daundkar, seeks perjury action against police for not examining eye witness Kamal Khan, the Bollywood singer, who was in the car along with the actor and his police bodyguard Ravindra Patil.
It also alleges that a wrong set of doctors were examined in the court by the police who said they had conducted postmortem of the deceased, thereby delaying the trial for three years in a magistrate's court.
By not examining witness Kamal Khan, the police had tried to cover an important piece of evidence which might have thrown light on who was driving the car at the relevant time, said lawyer Abha Singh, who argued for the applicant.
Judge D W Deshpande asked the lawyer to submit written arguments on Friday which he would consider before deciding the application for perjury.
“Under section 344 of the CrPc, if the court finds that perjury has been made out, it can issue show cause notices to the concerned parties and hear them before passing orders. In the alternative, the court may also dismiss the application if perjury is not proved," Abha Singh said.
The lawyer said that Kamal Khan, the singer friend of Salman, was in the same car when the accident occurred. He had given a statement to the police on October 4, 2002, that Salman and his bodyguard Ravindra Patil were in the front and he was sitting behind. However, there is no mention of Salman's driver Ashok Singh in his statement.
Significantly, the actor has taken a plea in the court that his driver Ashok Singh was driving the car and not he when the mishap occurred. Even Singh testified as a defence witness that he was driving the car at the relevant time.
"I am going to submit a copy of this statement of Kamal Khan to the court on Friday along with my written submissions," she told media persons after the hearing.
There are two star witnesses in this case. One of them, Ravindra Patil, the police bodyguard of the actor, died during the trial. The other one was Kamal, who has been dropped as witness by the police, the lawyer said.
The singer was initially hostile to the prosecution and did not appear in the case. Later, a non-bailable warrant was issued to him by a magistrate and he was arrested and released on a personal bond of Rs 5,000, she said.
Producing a copy of the magistrate's order, the lawyer noted that the singer had also given an undertaking to the court assuring that he would attend the court whenever required.
"However, his name was dropped by the prosecution and the police and we want to know why such a key witness was not examined. This only shows an unholy nexus between the police and the accused to fix the trial," the lawyer alleged.
Abha Singh claimed she had in her possession a list of witnesses prepared by the prosecution. Altogether 64 witnesses were set to be examined, but 37 were dropped and only 27 persons were brought before the court to tender evidence.
Kamal was among the witnesses who was dropped. The perjury application was earlier not entertained by the court. The aggrieved applicant then moved the high court, which directed the sessions court to hear it and decide.
The trial was earlier conducted by a magistrate after Salman was charged with 'rash and negligent driving', an offence which attracts punishment up to two years.
However, he added a graver charge of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which provides for ten years jail term. The case was referred to sessions court because this charge is not triable by a magistrate.
Meanwhile, Salman failed to appear in a court here for the recording of his statement in connection with a case against him under the Arms Act, citing ‘ill-health’.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Anupama Bijlani accepted an application moved by Khan's counsel seeking exemption from his appearance in the court on the ground of ill health, and asked him to appear on April 29 to record his statement.
"We had moved an application in the court of chief judicial magistrate seeking exemption from appearance of Salman in the court on the ground of ill health, which was accepted by the court," Khan's counsel H M Saraswat said, adding now he has to appear in the court on April 29.
Earlier on Wednesday, Khan's counsel had moved an application in the court with a plea to call five prosecution witnesses for re-examination. The court had allowed this application and arguments took place on it today.
Public Prosecutor N K Sankhla, opposing the application, termed it as ‘delaying tactics’ of the defence and argued that these witnesses had already been cross-examined by the defence and that there was no point in recalling them.
Admitting the Public Prosecutor's arguments, the court rejected the application, thereby paving the way for appearance of Khan in the court during the next hearing.
"We had moved an application seeking permission of the court to summon five witnesses for re-examination in pursuance of the four witnesses, who had been allowed to be examined by the court on plea of prosecution. But the court rejected our plea," Saraswat said, adding that they "are now considering moving higher court to challenge the rejection".
