(Image source from: Prosecution rejects driver's statement in Salman Khan's hit and run case})

In a fresh turn of events, the prosecution rejected Salman Khan’s driver Ashok Singh’s statement and questioned why he had remained silent for last twelve years and did not testify before. In the previous hearing, Salman had denied being under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident and had also reportedly shrugged off the claims that he was driving the car. Earlier last week, Salman’s driver, Ashok Singh had stated that he was driving the car at the time of the incident. He also added that he lost control of the car because the tyre of the white Toyota Land Cruiser burst.

The prosecution has rejected Salman Khan’s driver Ashok Singh’s statement and asked why Singh was silent for last twelve years and hadn’t testified earlier. Apparently, the prosecution has alleged that Khan did not have driving licence and was under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident, both of which are claims that the actor has vehemently denied while recording his statement, last week. while making the final arguments in the case, special public prosecutor Pradeep Gharat said, “It appears that he is a ‘brought up’ witness and as such his evidence cannot be accepted.”

The prosecutor said police constable Ravindra Patil, a complainant in the case and also bodyguard of Khan, had said in his statement about three persons occupying the car — he (himself), accused Salman and his friend Kamaal. Even Patil had not mentioned about the fourth person, i.e Ashok Singh, as claimed by the actor, the prosecutor said.

The prosecutor said the theory of “false implication” put up by the accused is totally ruled out because victims who were injured in the mishap had testified that they had seen Khan getting down from the driver’s seat.

Besides, the complainant was accompanying Khan when he was driving the car and allegedly ran over people sleeping outside a shop. “Both the complainant and victims are independent and impartial witnesses and their testimony should be accepted. It cannot be said that they were on inimical terms with Khan and hence they were falsely implicating him,” said Gharat.

Referring to Khan’s claim that Patil was dozing off when the mishap occurred, the prosecutor asked, “How can that be so?. He was on night duty on that day and was accompanying the actor. He cannot sleep when he is on duty.”

The actor is facing charges of IPC Sec. 304(II) – which attracts a 10-year jail sentence, Sec. 279, Sec. 337, Sec. 338, Sec. 427, and under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 for the incident that took place on September 28, 2002.IPC Sec. 304(II) – which attracts a 10-year jail sentence, Sec. 279, Sec. 337, Sec. 338, Sec. 427, and under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 for the incident that took place on September 28, 2002.

The prosecutor further argued that Khan had tried to reverse the evidence that had surfaced in the trial by saying that Patil was sleeping in the car when the mishap took place. Gharat said the victims who were injured in the mishap, had described the incident. However, there could be variations or exaggerations in their narration because perception of every person is different than the others. Even Supreme Court has laid down such variations could happen because of different perceptions of witnesses.

The prosecution assailed the defence theory that the mishap had occurred due to a mechanical fault in Khan’s Land Cruiser Lexus and also because of tyre burst. “That is not possible because the car is a high end sport utility vehicle and has a display panel indicator which gives alerts if any defects crop up. The car is a fully automatic power-loaded one which will not take it away from the road in case of mechanical failure,” said the prosecutor.

- Manohar. M