. Salman was granted bail by the Bombay High Court the same day he was convicted and sentenced by the session’s court.
The Bombay High Court may discard the evidence by the main prosecution witness Ravindra Patil in the 2002 hit-and-run-case involving Bollywood actor Salman Khan. The court observed that evidence of the injured is not devoid of inconsistencies and the prosecution had failed to prove the truthfulness of the witness, who claimed that Khan was intoxicated.”It’s difficult to accept the answer of witness Ravindra Patil (Salman’s bodyguard), who said that car tyre burst due to impact. In a criminal trial it’s the duty of the prosecution to establish its own case and not for the accused to prove his innocence,” the High Court said.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>Earlier, the Supreme Court had rejected the plea to cancel the superstar’s bail filed by Patil’s mother. Salman was granted bail by the Bombay High Court the same day he was convicted and sentenced by the session’s court. On May 6 this year, Salman was convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, besides several other offences and sentenced to five years jail against which he filed the present appeal in the High Court.
Mumbai: The prosecution in the 2002 hit-and-run case, in which Bollywood actor Salman Khan was convicted, had “tutored” its witnesses, his lawyer on Monday argued in the Bombay High Court.
Of these four witness, three had told the trial court that they had seen Salman getting down from the driver’s side of the car after it ran over the people sleeping on pavement, said his lawyer Amit Desai, arguing before Justice A R Joshi.
File photo of Salman Khan outside a court in Mumbai. PTI
Salman’s Toyota Land Cruiser had rammed into a shop in suburban Bandra on 28 September, 2002, killing one person and injuring four. He has appealed against his conviction and the five-year sentence awarded by the trial court in May.
Desai focused on the testimonies of the witnesses Muslim Nimayat Shaikh, Mannu Khan, Mohammed Kalim Iqbal Pathan and Mohammed Abdullah Shaikh. He compared their statements given to a Magistrate during an earlier trial and those before the sessions court which re-tried the case after a more serious charge of culpable homicide was pressed.
“If they were (trapped) underneath the car, as alleged by the prosecution, then how could they see the actor getting down from the right side of the vehicle?” advocate Desai said.
Muslim Shaikh told the trial court that he was under the car and heard shouts of people saying they had seen Salman Khan coming out but the prosecution didn’t examine the people who actually saw Salman coming out, Desai said.
Shaikh himself was injured and how was it possible for a an injured man writhing in pain to see who is getting down from the vehicle, Desai asked.
Also, this witness didn’t say whether Salman got down from the front seat or the rear side, all he said was he had seen the actor getting down from the right side. “This shows the witness was tutored,” the lawyer argued.
Muslim Shaikh told the sessions court about seeing Salman emerging from the driver’s side but he was mum on this aspect during the earlier trial, advocate Desai pointed out.
Another prosecution witness, Manu Khan, told the court that he saw Salman falling down twice (after getting out of the car) at the spot and he was drunk. But how could the witness say with confidence that Salman was drunk when he himself (Manu Khan) was under the car and could not have smelt liquor on Salman, the actor’s lawyer asked.
Salman could have fallen due to the shock (of the incident), the lawyer contended.
Again, this witness hadn’t said while deposing before the magistrate earlier that Salman was drunk, Desai said.
Witness Mohammed Pathan said he saw Salman getting down from the driver’s side but he was unable to state whether the vehicle was a right-wheel drive or a left-wheel drive, Desai said, questioning the worth of the testimony.
Mohammed Shaikh, the fourth witness, told the trial court that he had seen the actor on the spot, but didn’t say who was on the right side of the car and who was on the left, Salman’s lawyer said.
The prosecution also failed to examine Salman’s friends who were with him at a bar before the accident. To prove that the actor was drunk it examined the injured persons trapped under the car but did not examine those who were with the actor on that day, Desai said.
Ahmedabad: Two persons have been arrested by the city Crime Branch for allegedly attacking a man who was earlier a follower of controversial self-styled godman Asaram, but later turned against him, police said on Monday.
“We have arrested Basav Raj and Sheetal Prajapati in the case of firing on Asaram’s former follower Raju Chandak in 2009 in Chandkheda area of the city,” a Crime Branch official said.
Representational image. PTI
Chandak, after the mysterious death of two cousins Dipesh and Abhisek Vaghela of Asaram boarding school, had distanced himself from the godman.
He had later deposed before Justice DK Trivedi Commission which was appointed to probe the mysterious death of the two boys.
Police is also investigating the role of these two arrested persons in connection with the attacks on witnesses of rape cases filed against Asaram and his son Narayan Sai, the official said.
According to NIA officials, terrorists have long changed their modus operandi.
In order to keep a tab on the increasing menace of radicalisation of youth by terrorist organisations through social media and other online platforms, National Investigation Agency (NIA) has formed a special cell. According to a report published in a leading daily, the special cell is equipped with state of the art software tools to single out conversations in online chatter, which may be specially significant from terrorism or radicalisation point of view. Until now, only intelligence agencies like the Research and Analysis Wing (RA&W) and Intelligence Bureau (IB) were in possession of such tool. But now NIA is also armed with similar surveillance software. It has been a long standing demand of the agency to cultivate its own intelligence capabilities so that it can generate information regarding its ongoing investigations. <!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>A group of Indians left to fight for ISIS after getting radicalised through social media. One of the most vocal proponents of ISIS in the digital space, Shami Witness was found out to be a guy working in a software company in Bengaluru. Earlier too there have been several instances where Indian Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba have used the internet to attract youth cadres in their ranks. Thus, NIA is looking to keep a tab on such conversations but in the process personal privacy will unfortunately be a cruel martyr. According to NIA officials, terrorists have long changed their modus operandi. They no longer operate using phones and are often taking recourse in online mediums to pass on their information. Hence, NIA is looking to up the ante so that they can beat terrorists at their own game. However, terrorists are also no longer merely using plain messages. Often highly encrypted messages are passed, cryptic codes exchanged. So analysing the data to reach to the proper conclusion is the most key element. It is like obtaining a needle from a haystack and NIA is hoping that it will be able to get lucky on occasions to aid their investigations.
Jodhpur: A key witness in the blackbuck poaching case, allegedly involving Salman Khan, on Monday failed to appear in court for recording his statement, saying he is “mentally unfit” for this.
A key witness in the case against Salman Khan failed to appear in court.
Chogaram (65) was to appear in the court for recording his statement in relation to the case against Khan for alleged poaching of two blackbucks in Kankani here in October, 1998.
“His son appeared in the court today pleading that his father, Chogaram (65), was mentally unfit to give his statement so he should be dropped from the list of witnesses,” said Mahipal Bishnoi, one of the prosecution counsels, who moved an application in the court to this effect.
He also produced medical documents pertaining to his father’s treatment in Jodhpur and Ahmedabad, but magistrate Shivani Bhatnagar Johari sought a detailed medical report on Chogarma’s health status on 27 July on whether he could give statements in the court or not.
Khan’s counsel HM Saraswat said he would wait for the report to be produced in the court.
“Since the court has sought a detailed medical report on the health status of Chogaram, we would wait for the report before proceeding further,” he said.
Chogaram is an eyewitness in both the Kankani poaching and Arms Act cases against Khan. He had allegedly followed the vehicle of the actor and other film stars, who are co-accused in the case, after hearing the gun shots in his village and said to have tried to stop him.
Besides this, other two prosecution witnesses, Sagar Ram and the then forest officer Lalit Boda, have been issued warning for not appearing in the court.
The magistrate ordered them to appear in the court on the next hearing on July 27.
Lalit Modi, former IPL chief, tonight made explosive claims that Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhra Raje had supported in writing his immigration plea in Britain and that he has a “family” relationship with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj whose husband and daughter had provided legal services “free of cost”.
Lalit Modi, former IPL chief, tonight made explosive claims that Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhra Raje had supported in writing his immigration plea in Britain and that he has a “family” relationship with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj whose husband and daughter had provided legal services “free of cost”.Holidaying in the tiny Balkan nation of Montenegro, Modi told Rajdeep Sardesai of India Today TV channel in an interview that Raje had accompanied his wife to Portugal for her cancer treatment two years ago. Raje became chief minister of Rajasthan for the second time in December 2013.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The comments of the tainted former IPL Commissioner assume significance because it came hours after it was reported that Raje had given a “Witness Statement” in August 2011 to British authorities supporting his case for immigration in Britain which he has made his base after fleeing from India where he faces serious charges of money laundering and FEMA violations.Raje’s purported “witness statement” was made public earlier in the day on behalf of the Modi camp but later tonight the Chief Minister said she was not aware of this document.”Of course I know the family. I have always known them…(But) I do not know what documents they are talking about,” she told reporters in Jaipur.In the interview Modi said, “My relationship with Vasundhara Raje goes back 30 years. That relationship is known to everybody. She is a close friend of the family and my wife for a long time…She openly agreed to be (to be a witness), but unfortunately by the time the case went to trial, she was already chief Minister, so she did not come to become a witnes. The statements she gave is all on records in the courts.” “Raje and Sushma supported me when my wife was sick,” he said.”It was a family, a legal whatever you may call it. We were very close. But the point is not that…I am very close to a lot of politicians, not only Mrs Swaraj…,” Modi said when asked about his relationship with Sushma Swaraj. “My wife was being taken to Portugal by whom, by Mrs Vasundhara Raje. Nobody knows that, I am putting that on record now,” Modi said, adding she accompanied his wife Minal in 2012 and 2013. The surfacing of the “witness statement” gave a new twist to the controversy surrounding External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s help to Modi to seek British travel documents.”I did ask her(Swaraj) help,” Modi said, adding that he would have made a similar plea to any other External Affairs Minister in office. “I know Swaraj Kaushal(Sushma’s husband) for 20 years. He has been my advocate for 20 years…his daughter Bansuri had been my advocate for four years,” he said, adding that their services had been provided “free of cost”.The Witness Statement came into circulation just hours after Finance Minister Arun Jaitley backed Swaraj saying whatever she had done was in good faith and bona fide. The document had a confidentiality clause in which Raje purportedly supported Modi’s case but did not want it to be revealed to Indian authorities.Swaraj found herself at the centre of a political firestorm after the UK-based Sunday Times reported a “leaked conversation” between influential Labour MP Keith Vaz and head of UK Visas and Immigration Sarah Rapson that cited Swaraj to facilitate travel documents for Lalit Modi.
Mumbai: Bollywood actor Salman Khan was on Tuesday asked by a session court to appear before it on March 27 for recording his statement on prosecution evidence in the 2002 hit-and-run case, in which he is charged with killing one and injuring four others by ramming his car into a shop.
Khan’s statement would be recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that allows the accused to tell the court his/her side of the story at the fag end of the trial.
Salman Khan. PTI
The judge would also get an opportunity to question the accused on certain aspects of the trial, while the latter will get a chance to present his defence on evidence put up by prosecution before the court, said prosecutor Pradeep Gharat. Judge DW Deshpande passed the orders to this effect after consulting the prosecutor and defence lawyer Shrikant Shivade.
About 25 witnesses have already given evidence in this case. Investigation officer Kishan Shengal is currently deposing before the court.
About 25 witnesses have already given evidence in this case. Investigation officer Kishan Shengal is currently deposing before the court. The court is yet to pass an order on an application moved by defence lawyer seeking to recall another investigating officer Rajendra Kadam. However, the prosecution has opposed the plea.
Khan did not come to the court today. His sister Alvira was present. Salman was arrested after his car had rammed into a bakery shop in suburban Bandra in the wee hours of September 28, 2002. The five injured were taken to a nearby municipal hospital, where one of them was declared dead.
A fresh trial is being conducted after the charge of culpable homicide, which provides for imprisonment of up to ten years, was invoked. Earlier, the trial was being conducted by a magistrate, who had charged the actor with rash and negligent driving, which attracts only two years’ jail term.
Three police teams have been formed to apprehend the two assailants who shot dead Akhil Gupta, a witness in the rape case against Asaram Bapu in Surat, last evening. Akhil’s cousin Ashish Gupta has lodged an FIR against two unidentified persons, Senior Superintendent of Police H N Singh said on Monday. Three teams led by SP- city, Sarvan Kumar have been formed to trace the accused, he said. Police are investigating various angles including whether the murder was linked to Asaram’s case or it was a fallout of old enmity, officials said. Akhil was returning home from his shop on a scooter when the two motorcycle-borne assailant shot at him. He was declared dead in district hospital last evening. Gupta was a cook and personal aide of self-styled ‘Godman’ Asaram, who is in jail since September 2013 in connection with another case of sexual assault on a minor girl in Jodhpur. Two sisters in Surat have accused Asaram and his son Narayan Sai of raping them. Gupta was a witness in the rape case against Asaram and had recorded his statement before a Gandhinagar court. Also Read: Witness in Asaram Bapu’s Surat rape case shot dead