Showing posts with label Ashok Singh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ashok Singh. Show all posts
We suffered for 13 years; it was no picnic-Salim Khan
7:55 AM
A relieved Salim Khan talks about son Salman's acquittal and the ordeal his family has been through over the years
Roshmila Bhattacharya (MUMBAI MIRROR; December 12, 2015)
Salim Khan is a relieved man today with the Bombay High Court on Thursday acquitting son Salman of all charges. The actor was accused of running over five people sleeping on the pavement in 2002, and killing one of them. The Sessions Court in May had pronounced him guilty and sentenced him to five years, the higher court upturned that verdict. "We've always believed in the judiciary, it's a good judgement and we are very happy, " says Salim.
The veteran scriptwriter is however peeved that on TV debates many are talking about "shoddy investigations". "It was the same allegation, the same papers were submitted in court again and the same charge-sheet was filed. No one called the investigations shoddy when the Session Court sentenced Salman to five years in jail?" he argues.
Salim wonders why questions like "Who killed the man then? Who was driving the car?" are cropping up now. He points out that the driver, Ashok Singh, had gone to the cops "but unhone usse bhaga diya because they wanted to pin the blame on Salman, saying he was behind the wheel and drunk".
Another allegation which has upset him is that his son "walked away scot free". He asserts though he's embarrassed to express his emotions publicly, for 13 years Salman and the family suffered pain and terror. "Salman went to jail for 18 days and my biggest fear was what if kal ko usse sazaa ho jaye? In the last years of my life I wouldn't want to see my son in prison. As a father I wouldn't be able to eat without wondering what he's getting. Yeh kya sazaa nahin thi? It was no picnic for us?" he grouses.
Salim admits that one of the reasons Salman did not get married and have children was because of the apprehension that one day he might be sentenced. "Jab bhi mauka aata tha, the thought of what would happen to his wife and children tormented him," he says. Now, will one of the country's most eligible bachelors finally tie the knot? "Shaadi vyah is written in your destiny. No one can make anyone commit to it. If it's in his destiny, it will happen," Salim shrugs.
And what plans to bring in Salman's 50th birthday? "No plans," he says shortly. "It'll be a normal birthday. Whoever drops by unhein hum khilayenge and wish for their blessings. I've seen Salman grow and become more mature over the years. I wish him good health, good movies and happiness. I want my son to be happy."
Bombay High Court suspends Salman Khan's sentence; grants bail
9:32 AM
HC Asks Why Kamaal Khan Wasn't Examined As Witness
Swati Deshpande & Rebecca Samervel (THE TIMES OF INDIA; May 9, 2015)
Two days after his
conviction, actor Salman Khan again walked out from the same sessions
court premises in Fort, relief writ large on his face this time.
The Bombay High Court on Friday admitted his appeal against conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder for killing one person and injuring four in 2002 when his Land Cruiser crashed into a Bandra bakery, suspended his sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment and released him on bail on a bond of Rs 30,000.
Observing that application of the charge of culpable homicide against Khan requires serious consideration, Justice Abhay Thipsay asked public prosecutor Sandeep Shinde: “Why will this case not be a case of only rash driving?“ The judge observed that “even on the basis that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the applicant was driving the vehicle in question, at the material time, certainly, a number of arguable points have been raised, which need serious consideration.Among other things, whether the offence allegedly committed by the applicant would amount to an offence punishable under Section 304 II of the IPC and not merely an offence punishable under Section 304 A of the IPC, would also need examination. This would be of quite some importance as the offence punishable under Section 304 A of IPC is bailable, and invites a lesser punishment.“
Justice Thipsay admitted Khan's appeal soon after the matter got called. An appeal against a trial court verdict is usually admitted as a statutory right of a convict, and the public prosecutor did not oppose it. However, he opposed a plea by Salman's counsel Amit Desai to suspend his sentence and grant bail. Well before the judge could arrive, the ac courtroom was packed with media and lawyers, leaving no room for Salman's counsel Desai and advocate Shrikant Shivade or prosecutor Shinde to walk in. Lawyers, without matters of their own at the time, had perhaps come to see Desai tear at the trial court verdict.
Soon after the judge made it clear that the appeal was admitted, Desai launched into a blitzkrieg against blunders that the probe, prosecution and the judgment itself, he said, revealed. He began by disputing the conclusion that the car had only three occupants. “Ravindra Patil, the complainant, said there were three persons in the car, we said four. The fourth was the driver Ashok Singh. It was known to the prosecution from 2002 itself,“ Desai said, questioning the criticism over the “late introduction“ of the driver as witness in the case. “It is not as if Salman Khan took this as an afterthought,“ he said.
The other point Desai stressed on was the complete acceptance by sessions judge D W Deshpande of Patil's deposition as witness before the magistrate during the earlier trial for the lesser charge of rash driving. “Patil was a reluctant witness, because he was asked to say certain things. His deposition was so artificial. His statement about Salman being drunk or driving at a speed of 90-100 kmph was demolished, yet the judge accepted it.“ Desai said “the verdict is perverse... at many places, the judge merely says he finds no reason to disbelieve witnesses“.
Justice Thipsay asked if only Patil was examined as a witness and questioned why singer Kamaal Khan, the other occupant of the car, wasn't. While Desai said it was the prosecution's discretion, Shinde said he wasn't called since he was a British citizen who had returned to England and that “there was other evidence to prove the case“. Desai said the offence of culpable homicide was not made out. “The evidence produced during trial was not satisfactory,“ he pointed out.
The HC order noted, “It is also submitted there was some evidence to indicate the accident occurred due to bursting of a tyre... it is also submitted that evidence about the applicant being drunk was not satisfactory.“ Desai said though the prosecution's job is to prove beyond reasonable doubt its case, it failed badly.
Asked by the judge why Ashok Singh was not examined, Shinde said it was perhaps because Patil had said he was their day-time driver and at night, Salman drove himself. Shinde said the case against Khan was proved as he “knew the topography and knew people sleep on pavements, yet (he) drove drunk“. He called the fourth person theory “baseless“.
Throughout, Justice Thipsay posed questions to the defence and prosecution and observed, “Why should Salman's rights suffer just because his appeal is pending?“ He said, “We cannot pass an order against the accused just because it is asked for by the prosecution.“ When Shinde objected to the suspension of the sentence, the judge said, “Normally when sentence is less than seven years, the state does not oppose the suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal in case of an accused who is on bail during the trial.“
The judge said he thus directs that the appeal be heard expeditiously and posted it for hearing in July. He also said since Khan has been on bail throughout the trial, including the one for the graver charge of culpable homicide, it was unlikely he would abscond. “This is not a case where in spite of admission of appeal, the appellant should be kept in detention till the appeal is decided. It would be proper to suspend the sentence during the pendency of the appeal,“ he said in the order.
Directing Khan's release on bail, the judge said, “When an appeal is admitted... it would be rather unreasonable to suggest that even where arguable points needing consideration have been raised, appellant must be detained in custody.“
As directed by the HC, Khan then surrendered before sessions court. Close at hand were the two constant faces from his team, sister Alvira Khan Agnihotri and manager Reshma Shetty. His lawyer Shrikant Shivade furnished the fresh bail bond as the actor stood silently beside him. When judge Deshpande said Khan would need to comply and furnish surety within two weeks, he smiled and relaxed. At 5.48pm, as he exited the court premises, a beaming Alvira told TOI, “I am relieved that he is out.“
Law a passion for advocate Desai
For Amit Desai, a senior counsel who represented Salman Khan in the HC, practising criminal law is a passion that is evident to others when he appears in court often to demolish what a prosecution may claim is a water-tight case or to win brownie points, even a sympathetic ear from a strict judge, and a laughter-filled banter that his experience and legal might permits him to have with a judge while waiting for a hearing to begin in earnest. Desai has been appearing for many biggies, some of whom are now facing the 2G trials in Delhi. He appears for ex-CM Ashok Chavan in the Adarsh case where the current battle is now in the Supreme Court against a Bombay HC order not dropping his name. Some legal battles are tough and some are a breeze, some are long and unwieldy and some get him into knots over law points that need interpretation. He has appeared in all such cases, and in any courtroom he appears with a smile, behind which lies his knowledge of the law and quiet determination to beat the opponent in court.
The Bombay High Court on Friday admitted his appeal against conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder for killing one person and injuring four in 2002 when his Land Cruiser crashed into a Bandra bakery, suspended his sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment and released him on bail on a bond of Rs 30,000.
Observing that application of the charge of culpable homicide against Khan requires serious consideration, Justice Abhay Thipsay asked public prosecutor Sandeep Shinde: “Why will this case not be a case of only rash driving?“ The judge observed that “even on the basis that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the applicant was driving the vehicle in question, at the material time, certainly, a number of arguable points have been raised, which need serious consideration.Among other things, whether the offence allegedly committed by the applicant would amount to an offence punishable under Section 304 II of the IPC and not merely an offence punishable under Section 304 A of the IPC, would also need examination. This would be of quite some importance as the offence punishable under Section 304 A of IPC is bailable, and invites a lesser punishment.“
Justice Thipsay admitted Khan's appeal soon after the matter got called. An appeal against a trial court verdict is usually admitted as a statutory right of a convict, and the public prosecutor did not oppose it. However, he opposed a plea by Salman's counsel Amit Desai to suspend his sentence and grant bail. Well before the judge could arrive, the ac courtroom was packed with media and lawyers, leaving no room for Salman's counsel Desai and advocate Shrikant Shivade or prosecutor Shinde to walk in. Lawyers, without matters of their own at the time, had perhaps come to see Desai tear at the trial court verdict.
Soon after the judge made it clear that the appeal was admitted, Desai launched into a blitzkrieg against blunders that the probe, prosecution and the judgment itself, he said, revealed. He began by disputing the conclusion that the car had only three occupants. “Ravindra Patil, the complainant, said there were three persons in the car, we said four. The fourth was the driver Ashok Singh. It was known to the prosecution from 2002 itself,“ Desai said, questioning the criticism over the “late introduction“ of the driver as witness in the case. “It is not as if Salman Khan took this as an afterthought,“ he said.
The other point Desai stressed on was the complete acceptance by sessions judge D W Deshpande of Patil's deposition as witness before the magistrate during the earlier trial for the lesser charge of rash driving. “Patil was a reluctant witness, because he was asked to say certain things. His deposition was so artificial. His statement about Salman being drunk or driving at a speed of 90-100 kmph was demolished, yet the judge accepted it.“ Desai said “the verdict is perverse... at many places, the judge merely says he finds no reason to disbelieve witnesses“.
Justice Thipsay asked if only Patil was examined as a witness and questioned why singer Kamaal Khan, the other occupant of the car, wasn't. While Desai said it was the prosecution's discretion, Shinde said he wasn't called since he was a British citizen who had returned to England and that “there was other evidence to prove the case“. Desai said the offence of culpable homicide was not made out. “The evidence produced during trial was not satisfactory,“ he pointed out.
The HC order noted, “It is also submitted there was some evidence to indicate the accident occurred due to bursting of a tyre... it is also submitted that evidence about the applicant being drunk was not satisfactory.“ Desai said though the prosecution's job is to prove beyond reasonable doubt its case, it failed badly.
Asked by the judge why Ashok Singh was not examined, Shinde said it was perhaps because Patil had said he was their day-time driver and at night, Salman drove himself. Shinde said the case against Khan was proved as he “knew the topography and knew people sleep on pavements, yet (he) drove drunk“. He called the fourth person theory “baseless“.
Throughout, Justice Thipsay posed questions to the defence and prosecution and observed, “Why should Salman's rights suffer just because his appeal is pending?“ He said, “We cannot pass an order against the accused just because it is asked for by the prosecution.“ When Shinde objected to the suspension of the sentence, the judge said, “Normally when sentence is less than seven years, the state does not oppose the suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal in case of an accused who is on bail during the trial.“
The judge said he thus directs that the appeal be heard expeditiously and posted it for hearing in July. He also said since Khan has been on bail throughout the trial, including the one for the graver charge of culpable homicide, it was unlikely he would abscond. “This is not a case where in spite of admission of appeal, the appellant should be kept in detention till the appeal is decided. It would be proper to suspend the sentence during the pendency of the appeal,“ he said in the order.
Directing Khan's release on bail, the judge said, “When an appeal is admitted... it would be rather unreasonable to suggest that even where arguable points needing consideration have been raised, appellant must be detained in custody.“
As directed by the HC, Khan then surrendered before sessions court. Close at hand were the two constant faces from his team, sister Alvira Khan Agnihotri and manager Reshma Shetty. His lawyer Shrikant Shivade furnished the fresh bail bond as the actor stood silently beside him. When judge Deshpande said Khan would need to comply and furnish surety within two weeks, he smiled and relaxed. At 5.48pm, as he exited the court premises, a beaming Alvira told TOI, “I am relieved that he is out.“
Law a passion for advocate Desai
For Amit Desai, a senior counsel who represented Salman Khan in the HC, practising criminal law is a passion that is evident to others when he appears in court often to demolish what a prosecution may claim is a water-tight case or to win brownie points, even a sympathetic ear from a strict judge, and a laughter-filled banter that his experience and legal might permits him to have with a judge while waiting for a hearing to begin in earnest. Desai has been appearing for many biggies, some of whom are now facing the 2G trials in Delhi. He appears for ex-CM Ashok Chavan in the Adarsh case where the current battle is now in the Supreme Court against a Bombay HC order not dropping his name. Some legal battles are tough and some are a breeze, some are long and unwieldy and some get him into knots over law points that need interpretation. He has appeared in all such cases, and in any courtroom he appears with a smile, behind which lies his knowledge of the law and quiet determination to beat the opponent in court.
Will Salman Khan get bail, stay out of jail?
8:07 AM
No Reason For Witnesses To Lie: Judge
Swati Deshpande & Rebecca Samervel (THE TIMES OF INDIA; May 8, 2015)
A day after Bollywood
superstar Salman Khan was convicted and sentenced to 5 years RI in a
2002 hit-and-run case, the question on everyone's lips was: Will the
Bombay high court admit his appeal and grant him bail today? Even as
Bollywood personalities threw their weight behind Khan saying the
sentence was too harsh, there was some relief for the actor: the
Supreme Court refused to stay the interim bail granted by the HC. Also,
Khan does not
have to be physically present in the high court today. Usually, in law, a
first appeal against a conviction is admitted by a higher court. But if
bail is denied, Khan can go to the Supreme Court the same day.
Sessions judge D W Deshpande's 240-page judgment, a copy of which came
into exclusive possession of TOI first, makes it clear that he did not
believe any statement made by the actor in his defence,
nor did he believe Khan's driver Ashok Singh who said it was he, and not
Salman, who was driving that day. “Singh is a got up witness,“ the
judgment said.
About Khan, the judge noted: “The accused is a
well-known cine actor and had knowledge that one should not drive the
vehicle without licence or after consuming liquor and that too late at
night.These are basic rules.“ The entire judgment appears to rest
primarily on the testimony of police constable Ravindra Patil, who was
the actor's bodyguard and was with him in the Land Cruiser when it
rammed into a Bandra bakery at 2.45am on September 28, 2002, killing one
and injuring four. Patil said he had asked Khan, who was drunk, to slow
down. Salman's lawyer Shrikant Shivade could not cross-examine Patil,
who died in 2007, but the court held his evidence to be admissible and
said “there is no reason for any prudent man to believe that Patil is
falsely implicating Salman due to mob or media pressure“.
The judge said that since the beginning, it was never Khan's defence that his driver Singh was driving. Besides, no one suggested that Patil or singer Kamaal Khan was driving, and Khan never questioned any witness to suggest his other driver Altaf was driving initially, till he went to J W Marriott. “The only irresistible inference is that only Salman was at the wheel,“ the judge concluded. The judgment said special public prosecutor Pradip Gharat “proved all eight charges“ against Khan.
“There was 0.062 percent alcohol noticed in his blood. When a person has consumed alcohol and was driving late at night... he has knowledge there an accident can kill those sleep (sic) on the footpath,“ said the judge, relying on the judgement in the Alastair Pereira case.
Across the judgment, the judge held that “there was no reason“ for various witnesses to lie against Khan, each time the actor questioned the evidentiary value or merit of that witness.
Here's what the judge has said in his order on various aspects of the case:
On Khan's conduct
“The accused is (a) renowned film actor and he could do anything to provide help to the injured. If a ghastly accident takes place, wherein one person was crushed and four injured and in spite of that the person whose vehicle was involved in the accident hided himself (sic) till he is arrested, this itself shows the conduct of the accused,“ the judgement has stated.
“If according to the accused he did not commit the accident, then he could have convinced people that action will be taken against the driver. Salman Khan did not wait for the police on the spot but he went home and till 10.30am hid himself,“ the judge said.
“If really the accused Salman Khan committed no wrong, he could have visited the police immediately and lodged information about the incident. It is pertinent to note that the accused did not take any positive steps by visiting the hospital to see the injured and provide medical aid to them and to come to the spot again with the police,“ the judgement noted.
On his being drunk
According to Justice Deshpande, “Finding alcohol in blood is conclusive proof to demonstrate the person had consumed alcohol. Even if Rizwan Rakhangi, the manager of Rain Bar, and Kalpesh Verma, the parking assistant, did not notice any smell that would not establish that the accused had not consumed alcohol.“
On the chemical analyst
The court discarded Salman's claim that the analyst was no expert. “If under gruelling cross-examination, the witness is unable to tell the formulas and explain the test, it does not mean he is not an expert.No doubt can be raised against him. There is no reason for him to lie against the accused.Merely because advanced techniques are not used, opinion cannot be faulted, unless technique used is faulty.“ The judge said, “If accused had been arrested immediately after the incident the percentage of alcohol in blood would be more.“
On Khan's driving licence
Did Khan have a driving licence? As per the judgement, “The alleged incident occurred in the intervening night of Sept 27, 2002 to Sept 28, 2002. The burden shifts on the accused to demonstrate he was having licence. However, nothing is produced by the accused to show he was possessing licence“.
On the death of Nurullah Sharif
The judge labelled the defence submission that the death of the victim was caused by the falling crane that was called into lift the car and rescue the injured as imaginary and with out any valid and legal evidence. Referring to an injured victim's statement in court, the judge said, “How is it possible that Nurullah was alive in the hospital and he was crying in pain?... Nurullah expired because of the dash and running over his body by car when he was sleeping.“
On Ravindra Patil, Khan's bodyguard
Prosecution witness Ravindra Patil is a “natural and impartial witness“, the judge has stated, adding that there was no reason for him to falsely implicate Khan.
On culpable homicide not amounting to murder
According to the judge, “When a person has consumed alcohol and was driving the car late in the night, it was difficult for the person to concentrate in the night and that he had a knowledge that there is every likelihood of his meeting with an accident resulting in death or injuries to others particularly those sleeping on the footpath. “ SC doesn't stay order on bail he Supreme Court on Thursday refused to stay the Bombay high T court order granting interim bail for two days to Salman Khan hours after he was convicted and sentenced to five years in jail in a 2002 hit-and-run case. The HC order was challenged by a Mumbai resident who alleged it was illegal as law did not allow such preferential treatment. Advocate Vibhakar Mishra, appearing for the petitioner Akhilesh Chaubey, mentioned the case before a bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu for an urgent hearing, but his plea was rejected. The bench said it would hear the case in due course when the petition would be listed for hearing. The petitioner alleged that the HC erred in granting interim bail to Salman. “It amounts to preferential treatment to a celebrity,“ the petition said.
About Khan, the judge noted: “The accused is a
well-known cine actor and had knowledge that one should not drive the
vehicle without licence or after consuming liquor and that too late at
night.These are basic rules.“ The entire judgment appears to rest
primarily on the testimony of police constable Ravindra Patil, who was
the actor's bodyguard and was with him in the Land Cruiser when it
rammed into a Bandra bakery at 2.45am on September 28, 2002, killing one
and injuring four. Patil said he had asked Khan, who was drunk, to slow
down. Salman's lawyer Shrikant Shivade could not cross-examine Patil,
who died in 2007, but the court held his evidence to be admissible and
said “there is no reason for any prudent man to believe that Patil is
falsely implicating Salman due to mob or media pressure“.The judge said that since the beginning, it was never Khan's defence that his driver Singh was driving. Besides, no one suggested that Patil or singer Kamaal Khan was driving, and Khan never questioned any witness to suggest his other driver Altaf was driving initially, till he went to J W Marriott. “The only irresistible inference is that only Salman was at the wheel,“ the judge concluded. The judgment said special public prosecutor Pradip Gharat “proved all eight charges“ against Khan.
“There was 0.062 percent alcohol noticed in his blood. When a person has consumed alcohol and was driving late at night... he has knowledge there an accident can kill those sleep (sic) on the footpath,“ said the judge, relying on the judgement in the Alastair Pereira case.
Across the judgment, the judge held that “there was no reason“ for various witnesses to lie against Khan, each time the actor questioned the evidentiary value or merit of that witness.
Here's what the judge has said in his order on various aspects of the case:
On Khan's conduct
“The accused is (a) renowned film actor and he could do anything to provide help to the injured. If a ghastly accident takes place, wherein one person was crushed and four injured and in spite of that the person whose vehicle was involved in the accident hided himself (sic) till he is arrested, this itself shows the conduct of the accused,“ the judgement has stated.
“If according to the accused he did not commit the accident, then he could have convinced people that action will be taken against the driver. Salman Khan did not wait for the police on the spot but he went home and till 10.30am hid himself,“ the judge said.
“If really the accused Salman Khan committed no wrong, he could have visited the police immediately and lodged information about the incident. It is pertinent to note that the accused did not take any positive steps by visiting the hospital to see the injured and provide medical aid to them and to come to the spot again with the police,“ the judgement noted.
On his being drunk
According to Justice Deshpande, “Finding alcohol in blood is conclusive proof to demonstrate the person had consumed alcohol. Even if Rizwan Rakhangi, the manager of Rain Bar, and Kalpesh Verma, the parking assistant, did not notice any smell that would not establish that the accused had not consumed alcohol.“
On the chemical analyst
The court discarded Salman's claim that the analyst was no expert. “If under gruelling cross-examination, the witness is unable to tell the formulas and explain the test, it does not mean he is not an expert.No doubt can be raised against him. There is no reason for him to lie against the accused.Merely because advanced techniques are not used, opinion cannot be faulted, unless technique used is faulty.“ The judge said, “If accused had been arrested immediately after the incident the percentage of alcohol in blood would be more.“
On Khan's driving licence
Did Khan have a driving licence? As per the judgement, “The alleged incident occurred in the intervening night of Sept 27, 2002 to Sept 28, 2002. The burden shifts on the accused to demonstrate he was having licence. However, nothing is produced by the accused to show he was possessing licence“.
On the death of Nurullah Sharif
The judge labelled the defence submission that the death of the victim was caused by the falling crane that was called into lift the car and rescue the injured as imaginary and with out any valid and legal evidence. Referring to an injured victim's statement in court, the judge said, “How is it possible that Nurullah was alive in the hospital and he was crying in pain?... Nurullah expired because of the dash and running over his body by car when he was sleeping.“
On Ravindra Patil, Khan's bodyguard
Prosecution witness Ravindra Patil is a “natural and impartial witness“, the judge has stated, adding that there was no reason for him to falsely implicate Khan.
On culpable homicide not amounting to murder
According to the judge, “When a person has consumed alcohol and was driving the car late in the night, it was difficult for the person to concentrate in the night and that he had a knowledge that there is every likelihood of his meeting with an accident resulting in death or injuries to others particularly those sleeping on the footpath. “ SC doesn't stay order on bail he Supreme Court on Thursday refused to stay the Bombay high T court order granting interim bail for two days to Salman Khan hours after he was convicted and sentenced to five years in jail in a 2002 hit-and-run case. The HC order was challenged by a Mumbai resident who alleged it was illegal as law did not allow such preferential treatment. Advocate Vibhakar Mishra, appearing for the petitioner Akhilesh Chaubey, mentioned the case before a bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu for an urgent hearing, but his plea was rejected. The bench said it would hear the case in due course when the petition would be listed for hearing. The petitioner alleged that the HC erred in granting interim bail to Salman. “It amounts to preferential treatment to a celebrity,“ the petition said.
Salman Khan gets 5 years in jail in 2002 hit-and-run case; secures two-day bail
7:54 AM
Sunil Baghel & Sharmeen Hakim Indorewala (MUMBAI MIRROR; May 7, 2015)
Right after sessions court Judge D W Deshpande went into his chamber after he had pronounced his "guilty" verdict in the Salman Khan hit and run case, the actor's sisters rushed to him. Amid the hullabaloo of curious onlookers, fans and female lawyers, special public prosecutor Pradeep Gharat also approached Salman, held his shoulder and said with utmost sincerity: "I didn't want to meet you this way, don't feel bad." Salman held Gharat's arm, and said: "No sir, you're doing your job."
But just hours after the sessions court sentenced him to five years in jail for culpable homicide not amounting to murder for the death of a homeless man, the mood changed as Salman secured interim bail from the Bombay High Court.
The courtroom was packed by 10.15 am. Salman's brother Sohail Khan, Congress MLA Baba Siddique and Salman's brother-in-law Atul Agnihotri (who sported a Being Human cap) were the first to arrive from the family, followed by Arbaaz. They sat in the second row of seating for litigants. The rest of family, including Salman's sisters Alvira and Arpita, along with an unshaven Salman in a white shirt and rugged blue jeans - driven by his driver Ashok Singh with bodyguard Shera and two others by his side - entered court at around 10.50 am.
Judge Deshpande sat on the dais at 11.05 am. Salman took to the witness box, head slightly bowed, looking straight at the judge. His brothers and brother in-law stood up to listen.
At 11.10, Judge Deshpande held Salman guilty for the incident on September 28, 2002, dismissing his defence's points. "It is not probable that anyone but you was driving the car. I have also come to a conclusion you were intoxicated while driving the vehicle and that the cause of death of the victim was the incident itself and not the defence taken by your lawyers," the judge said. The actor seemed taken completely aback.
"You've been found guilty on all counts. The maximum sentence provided is of 10 years, what do you have to say," the judge asked Salman.
"Whatever you say is correct, sir. My lawyer will say whatever I have to say," Salman replied.
At 1.25 pm, when the judge finally sentenced Salman to five years' imprisonment, the entire courtroom gasped.
Usually a drab courtroom with piles of case papers, today was different for Room No 52 of the City Civil and Sessions Court. With more than 100 police officers lining all the way from the ground floor to the courtroom, the buzz was palpable. More than 150 pairs of eyes were fixed on the front left corner of the courtroom where Salman sat. The actor, who seemed calmer than usual, was surrounded by family the entire day.
Immediately after the sentence was pronounced, his family members went into a huddle before their lawyers briefed them. Salman's sister Alvira and her manager along with the lawyers rushed to the Bombay High Court. Remarkably, even before the judgment copy could be made available to the actor, his lawyers filed an appeal in the high court contesting the exact points on which the sessions convicted him. They returned, smiling, at around 5 pm. For the first time since the morning, the family looked relieved.
"We have received relief from high court," Shivade said, panting.
Formalities were finally completed at 7 pm, when the entire Khan family left the court premises. Fans thronged outside, with some crowding the porches of nearby buildings.
Minutes after the judge held Salman guilty, the actor's manager and younger sister Arpita broke down. As the arguments on the quantum of punishment began, there was constant noise in the courtroom. Salman's lawyer could barely be heard. "Sir, arrest these people!" he told the judge, after which police enforcement was called in. Top rung of police officers including Addl CP Krishna Prakash and DCP Satyanarayan Choudhry kept making rounds of the courtroom.
Arguing for a lesser sentence, Salman's lawyer Shrikant Shivade said this would probably be the first case where a person has been held guilty for culpable homicide for causing just one death. The judge said that he had relied mainly on the Alistair Pereira and Sanjeev Nanda cases while convicting Salman for culpable homicide. Shivade then cited those very cases as precedent for not giving more than three years' sentence.
Shivade cited Nanda's case as one where the apex court had recognised the concept of community service. The Supreme Court asked Nanda to pay Rs 50 lakh (to be used for the welfare of victims of hit and run cases) and asked do community service for two years.
He cited that the alcohol content found in both Pereira and Nanda's blood was double than that of Salman and the number of deaths was much higher. Salman, Shivade pointed out, had paid Rs 19 lakh as compensation in 2002 itself unlike other cases where compensation was paid after conviction, and said that the actor was willing to pay more compensation.
Shivade also submitted a chart of "good work" done by Salman's Being Human foundation. "The foundation has spent Rs 42 crore in the past three years, close to 700 surgeries have been performed free on underprivileged children. All this will stop if he is sentenced," Shivade said.
He also pleaded that Salman not be made an example of. "Court is not a ramp for showcasing the sentencing policy. Every offender has to be treated equally," he said.
During the end of the hour-long argument that was sprinkled with interruptions, Shivade took out Salman's neurology reports and handed them over to the judge. This was the only time in the day that Salman looked upset. Cringing when his lawyer started reading out the report - pleading for leniency in view of Salman's health - Salman repeatedly indicated to his sister to make his lawyer stop. "Let it be," Salman muttered under his breath. Alvira stopped her lawyer from reading further.
Gharat stuck to his earlier submission that Salman should be given such a punishment that no one would repeat such a thing. "He is an actor. People not just watch his movies but follow him other things as well. The punishment should not only be deterrent but also exemplary," Gharat said, adding that the number of deaths can't be the criterion for deciding punishment.
Just after the arguments ended, the electricity went off. As the May heat engulfed the courtroom, tempers flared up among the gathered crowd.
Appeal calls judgment illegal
Challenging the sessions court order on 41 grounds, Salman Khan's appeal
to the Bombay High Court says that the lower court "failed to construe
the true scope of section 304 part II of the IPC (culpable homicide not
amounting to murder)." The appeal calls it an error on the part of the judge to not accept Salman's driver Ashok Singh's testimony that he was driving the car, and not accepting that pavement dweller Nurulla Meboob Sharif died during the rescue operation and not the accident.
The appeal challenges the sessions court's acceptance of Salman's police security person the late Ravindra Patil's evidence, saying that the defence could not get to cross-examine him in the new trial.
The appeal challenges evidence given by Patil, Kalpesh Verma (the valet parking guy at the bar where Salman was), Dr Shahsikant Pawar (who drew blood from Salman), Dattaray Bhalshankar (who tested Salman's blood sample) and Rajendra Keskar (the RTO inspector who examined Salman's car). It also calls it an error on the part of the lower court to not consider favourable evidence for Salman.
One of the main grounds why Salman's old bail order was continued by Justice Abhay Thipsay was that the actor was yet to receive the detailed order copy. This could well be precedentsetting, as there is hardly any case where the convict is supplied with a judgment copy immediately after the pronouncement.
"Though there is nothing illegal about it, but the court could have pronounced the order after the judgment was ready - may be tomorrow or day after," said Justice Thipsay.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve had submitted that a person can't be sent to jail without an order. "He should be released on interim bail till he gets the order copy," Salve submitted. Apart from the fact that Salman was on bail during the entire trial period, the bail application mentions that Salman is involved in two ongoing movie projects on which the livelihood of hundreds of people depends, and that Salman has a neurological condition that could aggravate in custody. The high court will hear the case on May 8.
13 yrs on, Salman Khan's case set for a real-life climax today
8:09 AM
Actor Faces 10 Yrs Jail If Convicted In Bandra Mishap 2002 Case
THE TIMES OF INDIA (May 6, 2015)
The Salman Khan verdict,
scheduled to be pronounced on Wednesday , will bring the curtains
down on a case that has riveted the nation's attention for 13 years.
Sessions judge D W Deshpande, who has been conducting the fresh trial
that commenced in April last year, will deliver the judgment at 11.15am
with the Bollywood superstar standing in the dock and a posse of
policemen guarding the court premises to keep the expected crowds at bay.
The actor is accused of ramming his Landcruiser into the American Express Bakery on Bandra's Hill Road in the early hours of September 28, 2002. One person sleeping on the footpath was killed, while four persons were seri ously injured.
Khan, who has Rs 200 crore riding on his next two films, arrived in the city on Tuesday evening from Srinagar, where he was shooting for his home production Bajrangi Bhaijaan. The film is due for a July 17 Eid release, while the second, Prem Ratan Dhan Payo, directed by Sooraj Barjatya, will hit theatres in Diwali.
Khan has been on bail since his release on October 25, 2002. The best outcome for him would be if the court holds that he wasn't at the wheel at the time of the mishap and acquits him of all charges. The worst scenario for him is if he is found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304-II of the IPC for an act committed with knowledge that it could result in someone's death. The crime attracts a maximum imprisonment of ten years. Khan can also be convicted only of rash driving, which attracts a two-year jail term. However, under law, the sentence can be suspended the same day and the convict given bail immediately. The question about whether jail is imminent and immediate thus depends on the conviction and the sentence.
The hit-and-run case involving actor Salman Khan has seen several twists and turns, the most sensational being sole defence witness Ashok Singh, Khan's driver for over two decades, claim on March 30 that he was behind the wheel at the time of the incident.
Special public prosecutor Pradeep Gharat dubbed Singh a “self-condemned liar“ and said he was liable for perjury. Khan was tried for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, a charge added to the case after key prosecution witness Ravindra Patil--a constable assigned to guard him--told police the actor was driving the vehicle drunk. Patil died in 2007, but his examination before the magistrate was included in the present trial. During final arguments, defence advocate Shrikant Shivade opposed the inclusion. Another key prosecution witness was Dattaray Bhalshankar, the chemical analyst who told the court Khan's blood sample tested positive for 62mg of alcohol. In his cross-examination, he could not recollect how he conducted the method to analyse the sample. Special public prosecutor Pradip Gharat said though the prosecution has to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt: “in the absence of specific suggestions...the court has to balance and evaluate evidence and ignore minor inconsistencies in depositions“. A senior bureaucrat said if Khan is acquitted, instructions have been given to police to file an appeal. If he is convicted, defence lawyer Shivade and prosecutor Gharat will have to make submissions before the sentencing. The court can also hear the submissions on Wednesday.
Besides his two under-production films, Salman is committed to start 'Shuddhi' for Karan Johar, a film in which Sanjay Dutt plays the antagonist. Besides, he is committed to start films for producer Boney Kapoor, his brother Arbaaz Khan and brother-in-law Atul Agnihotri. “Should the verdict go against him, it will be a big blow to the Hindi film industry,“ a trade analyst said.
Cops to screen all visitors to court
Mumbai Police will frisk every visitor to the sessions court on Wednesday. A large number of cops, most of who were on duty outside Wankhede stadium for Tuesday's IPL match, will be posted around the court. People visiting the court have been advised to carry proper documentation as only those who have case dates will be allowed inside. “Some areas have been made no-parking zones,'' said Deven Bharti, joint commissioner of police (law and order). TNN
The actor is accused of ramming his Landcruiser into the American Express Bakery on Bandra's Hill Road in the early hours of September 28, 2002. One person sleeping on the footpath was killed, while four persons were seri ously injured.
Khan, who has Rs 200 crore riding on his next two films, arrived in the city on Tuesday evening from Srinagar, where he was shooting for his home production Bajrangi Bhaijaan. The film is due for a July 17 Eid release, while the second, Prem Ratan Dhan Payo, directed by Sooraj Barjatya, will hit theatres in Diwali.
Khan has been on bail since his release on October 25, 2002. The best outcome for him would be if the court holds that he wasn't at the wheel at the time of the mishap and acquits him of all charges. The worst scenario for him is if he is found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304-II of the IPC for an act committed with knowledge that it could result in someone's death. The crime attracts a maximum imprisonment of ten years. Khan can also be convicted only of rash driving, which attracts a two-year jail term. However, under law, the sentence can be suspended the same day and the convict given bail immediately. The question about whether jail is imminent and immediate thus depends on the conviction and the sentence.
The hit-and-run case involving actor Salman Khan has seen several twists and turns, the most sensational being sole defence witness Ashok Singh, Khan's driver for over two decades, claim on March 30 that he was behind the wheel at the time of the incident.
Special public prosecutor Pradeep Gharat dubbed Singh a “self-condemned liar“ and said he was liable for perjury. Khan was tried for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, a charge added to the case after key prosecution witness Ravindra Patil--a constable assigned to guard him--told police the actor was driving the vehicle drunk. Patil died in 2007, but his examination before the magistrate was included in the present trial. During final arguments, defence advocate Shrikant Shivade opposed the inclusion. Another key prosecution witness was Dattaray Bhalshankar, the chemical analyst who told the court Khan's blood sample tested positive for 62mg of alcohol. In his cross-examination, he could not recollect how he conducted the method to analyse the sample. Special public prosecutor Pradip Gharat said though the prosecution has to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt: “in the absence of specific suggestions...the court has to balance and evaluate evidence and ignore minor inconsistencies in depositions“. A senior bureaucrat said if Khan is acquitted, instructions have been given to police to file an appeal. If he is convicted, defence lawyer Shivade and prosecutor Gharat will have to make submissions before the sentencing. The court can also hear the submissions on Wednesday.
Besides his two under-production films, Salman is committed to start 'Shuddhi' for Karan Johar, a film in which Sanjay Dutt plays the antagonist. Besides, he is committed to start films for producer Boney Kapoor, his brother Arbaaz Khan and brother-in-law Atul Agnihotri. “Should the verdict go against him, it will be a big blow to the Hindi film industry,“ a trade analyst said.
Cops to screen all visitors to court
Mumbai Police will frisk every visitor to the sessions court on Wednesday. A large number of cops, most of who were on duty outside Wankhede stadium for Tuesday's IPL match, will be posted around the court. People visiting the court have been advised to carry proper documentation as only those who have case dates will be allowed inside. “Some areas have been made no-parking zones,'' said Deven Bharti, joint commissioner of police (law and order). TNN
He never told us all these years that he was driving the car-Salman Khan's driver Ashok Singh's wife
8:20 AM
Anita Singh says her husband never discusses his work at home, and she is proud that he did not let his master of 25 years down
Nazia Sayed (MUMBAI MIRROR; April 4, 2015)
Five days after Salman Khan's driver told a court he was driving the car at the time of the September 2002 hitand-run case, his wife told Mumbai Mirror that she learned about it like the rest of the world - from television news.
Speaking at their modest one-room Andheri home, Anita Singh said her husband did not mention the incident either on the night of the accident or anytime later in the ensuing 13 years.
Finding their home in the narrow by-lanes of Four Bungalow is not difficult. In the neighbourhood, Ashok is famous as 'Salman ka Driver'. The first person you ask about him takes you straight to his home on a ground-plus-one structure in a compound. The family of four has rented out the upper floor and lives in the 350-square feet ground floor tenement.
After letting us in, Anita sits on a cot beside the window, telling us she was waiting for her sons, aged 18 and 25, to come home. The elder one works in a call centre and the younger one is in Class XII.
Ashok Singh, 48, came home only once after his court appearance, that too for a few hours, she said. Asked if she had any knowledge that her husband was behind the wheel, she said, "Whatever I know was from the news channels and papers. My husband never told me anything about it. But that's his nature. He never discusses work at home. It was his decision not to tell anything, and even now it was his decision to confess before the court. I respect his decision and am proud that he did not let his master down."
Ashok Singh joined Salman Khan's family as a driver in 1989 a few months before the actor signed his debut as a lead actor, Maine Pyar Kiya. Anita said Ashok got the job after replying to a newspaper ad calling for a driver for Salman Khan. The same year, he got married to Anita. He has been with the actor since.
"He has been with Salman even before he became a star," Anita said. "I am happy that he has proved his loyalty to him. Agar aaj chup rehte toh 25 saal ki wafadaari ka koi mol nahi rehta. [If he kept quiet even today, then what is the point of 25 years of loyalty?]"
She said even on the day of his court appearance, Ashok only told her he was going to court like every other hearing.
"The rest, I saw on TV," she said. "Justice has to be done, na? If he is the culprit then he should be ready for the punishment also. And we know Salman will never leave our side. He will do everything to help us out. People do not know the real Salman. He is a man with a heart of gold. He can never see anyone in pain. Even for people who are strangers to him he donates so much."
Asked why her husband was silent for so many years, Anita said he had gone to the police station after the accident, but got scared on seeing how the police and media were hounding Salman.
"Anyone in his place would have chickened out," she said. "Salman kept saying he was not driving but no one listened. This time my husband had a chat with Salim Sir [Salman's father] and decided to tell the truth. There is speculation that Salman must have paid Ashok a huge sum to take the blame on himself but this is wrong. We don't want anything from Salman. He has been kind to us and we just couldn't see him in suffer."
Ashok spends a lot of time with Salman and doesn't come home often, she added. The couple has been living in this house for 15 years. The only time Salman visited them was during the house warming.
"Even on the day he deposed in court, Ashok came home for a few hours and left," she said. "He has now gone with Salman to his Panvel farmhouse, from where they will go to Lonavala. People target Salman just because he is a star. Agar koi aur hota toh kya media is case ko itna uthati? And even if it was Salman who did it, it was not deliberate. It happened by mistake. Why make a big issue out of it?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)