Showing posts with label Ravindra Patil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ravindra Patil. Show all posts
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.
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
DNA Exclusive: Copy of Salman Khan’s defamation case against blogger?
8:14 AM
DNA (April 16, 2015)
On a lot of social networking sites, there are reports
of Salman Khan threatening a blogger to take down two posts that he had
written on his Bandra accident. We have managed to get our hands on the
legal notice sent to the blogger. Says a source, “No way has Salman
ever threatened this blogger. In fact they had no interaction with each
other. This notice was sent to him and no part of it is a threat. He is
well within his rights to protect his public image. This was a case of
defamation. There was no proof, else the blogger would not have taken
down the posts.” The legal document raises the following points.
l The two articles written about Salman dated June 26 and June 27 2013, titled ‘The wretched witness’ and ‘Ravindra Patil — the death of a messenger’, have Salman’s picture and make uncremonious, biased, false and reckless accusation. “Everybody knows that one person was killed and four others were killed when an inebriated Salman Khan rammed his Landcruiser onto the steps of A1 Bakery at the turning near Mehboob Studio in the wee hours of September 28, 2002,” — the first article states.
l The second article states, “It was unclear who was putting pressure on Patil — some say they were all well-wishers of Salman Khan from the police force while others say those talking to Patil were Salman’s common friends from the film industry. Whoever, they were, the pressure tactic seemed to be working as Patil was showing signs of a nervous breakdown.
l It further reads, “By stating that our client has killed a person and injured pavement dwellers and by using words ‘one person was killed’, ‘rammed his landcruiser’, ‘Inebriated Salman Khan’, you have wilfully stated as facts which are at the highest mere allegations. The charges may involve culpable homicide not amounting to murder.”
l Says that these reckless, irresponsible and defamatory allegations have defamed Salman and lowered his reputation in the eyes of the public. Also it seems like the story is instigating the public to believe that Salman was responsible for the death of Ravindra Patil.
l The defemation suit has asked for the articles to be withdrawn with immediate effect, tender a public apology on the website within two days of the suit being sent and damages of One Hundred Crore rupees to be paid within one week for the notice being received.
Other defamation suits in the west
In 2005, Cameron Diaz won her libel lawsuit against British newspaper The Sun today, over the publication’s claim she had an affair with a married man.
In 2013, Tom Cruise won $50 million lawsuit against Bauer Publishing for publishing a article saying he was a bad father. And had abandoned his daughter Suri.
In 2014, Scarlett Johanssan won a defamation case against a French author.She sued Delacourt for making false claims about her private life in his novel where the fictional character who was not really Johansson had two affairs that the real Johansson never had. It was, she said, defamatory — and a French judge agreed. The court awarded her just €2,500, plus €2,500 in legal costs.
Sharon Stone sued plastic surgeon Renato Calabria for allegedly telling both U.S. Weekly and Touch Magazine that she had undergone a facelift. Stone claimed that these statements defamed her and made it difficult for her to find work.
Jessica Biel and Justin Timberlake settled their defamation case against celebrity magazine Heat at the High Court in Dublin. After the magazine apologised to the couple over an article published in September’s edition under the headline. “Justin Timberlake gets flirty with another woman, it’s not his wife!”
Salman Khan hit-and-run witnesses traced; to depose in court today
11:00 AM
Nazia Sayed (MUMBAI MIRROR; April 28, 2014)
The Bandra police have
traced five people who were injured in the 2002 hit-and-run accident
involving actor Salman Khan and will produce at least three of them as
witnesses today in front of a court that is trying the actor for
culpable homicide. Khan was arrested in September 2002 for rash and negligent driving after his car ran over workers sleeping outside Bandra's A1 bakery, killing one. Last August, a court charged him with culpable homicide after examining 17 witnesses.
The court had said prima facie Khan had the knowledge that his act of rash driving, particularly after drinking, might result in death of people in accident. Khan's counsel then said since a fresh charge was added, he deserved a retrial.
These five witnesses are crucial for the prosecution, especially since Khan's police bodyguard, Constable Ravindra Patil, the complainant in the case who had testified that Khan was drunk at the time of the accident, is no more. Patil contracted tuberculosis and died of a heart attack in October 2007.
Sources in Bandra police said an old-timer working at A1 Bakery helped them track the witnesses to a village in UP. "The witnesses at first were reluctant to come to Mumbai," said an officer from Bandra police. "They said they had lost interest in the case and did not wish to get entangled in legal battles with anyone. But we eventually convinced them to come back."
The hunt for the victims began when summons sent to the addresses they had given returned undelivered. The police then sought the old worker's help and he gave the phone number of one of the relatives of a witness. When the police team tracked this witness to UP, he led them to the others who were scattered all over the state. They were then issued summons in person and were told to be present in the court on April 28.
The police, who kept a close watch on the witnesses, brought three of them to Mumbai on Thursday and have kept them at a safe location. Aditional CP Milind Bharambe, said, "They are with us and will depose in the court on Monday." The other two victims have also been identified and their location traced. One of them is in Karnataka while the fourth is still in Mumbai working in a bakery in the central suburbs.
WHAT THE WITNESSES SAID
Following are the excerpts from the statements of two witnesses based on which the court ordered the framing of culpable homicide charges: Muslim Shaikh, in his statement, said he and his other four colleagues from A1 Bakery used to sleep on the pavement outside American Express bakery.
"On the night of September 28, 2002, all of us, including the deceased Nurullah Sharif, 38, had gone to sleep by 11.30 pm. It was between 2.30 am and 3.00 am that I felt a sharp pain in my left thigh.
"When I got up I could see my colleagues crying and saw a white Jeep-type car on the pavement. I could see a human body beneath its tyres and one of my colleagues was screaming 'mar gaya woh...maar daala usse.' Then I saw some people rushing towards the car and saying Salman neeche utar. Actor Salman Khan got down from the driver seat and started running away. One man who claimed to be a policeman started pushing away the crowd, telling people to be calm and not to get violent. Then the people put me and my colleagues into auto rickshaws and got us admitted in hospital."
Constable Ravindra Patil in his statement had said that at the time of the incident Salman, his singer friend Kamal Khan and he were in the Land Cruiser.
Excerpts from his statement:
"Around 2.30 am, we left from JW Marriot. Salman was driving at 100 kmph and I asked him to slow down but he refused. As we came to Bandra and turned towards the St. Andrews Road, he lost balance and rammed the vehicle into the closed shutter of the bakery. He had run over the people sleeping on the pavement. As the vehicle came to a halt an angry mob rushed towards Salman. Kamal and Salman started running from there but I stayed back. I prevented the crowd from reaching Salman and told them to help the victims first and admitted them to Bhabha hospital. I then became the complainant in the case and told the cops that the actor was driving under the influence of alcohol.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)