State Versus Salman Khan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
- Dr. Ajay Nathani State versus Salman Khan Salim Khan Salman Khan Salim Khan versus State The title of the article seems odd but there is a purpose to keep this title. This article is about verdict of the trial court in the case of Salman Khan and verdict of the High Court in appeal against conviction hence the title. My purpose to write the article is to analyse these verdicts not from the angle of legal literate but from the angle of prudent man referred in the Evidence Act and also speak about the perception of common men about the outcome of verdicts. It was the case of the prosecution that on 27th September 2002 the accused accompanied with his Bodyguard Mr Patil(provided by the State for his security) and his friend Kamal Khan for a night out. After consuming alcohol and eating at fue eateries in the wee hours of 28th September 2002 they started their return journey. The accused was driving the car. He was driving the car rashly and in high speed.He was cautioned by his Bodyguard Mr Patil who was sitting beside him on the front seat. When the accused was negotiating turn at the junction of Saint Andrews Road he was unable to control the vehicle and drew the vehicle on the pavement and dashed to the shutter of an auto shop put the shutters of a shop. Few persons sleeping on the pavement were crushed under the car and were injured. One of the injured succumbed to his injuries. The mob collected there became furious and the accused and his friend flee away from the place of incident. Bodyguard Mr. Ravindra Patil tried to pacify the mob and also lodged report of the incident at police Station. The accused was arrested in the morning of 28th of September 2002. On the same day his blood samples were collected but the blood samples were sent to chemical analyser on 30th of September 2002. Till then the samples were kept in the Chamber of police inspector investigating the offence. The chemical analyser reported that the blood sample of the accused contained 0.062%w/v ethyl alcohol. Initially the charge-sheet was filed for trial before the court of metropolitan magistrate. After addition of charge u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code the case was committed to the court of sessions. The court of sessions framed charge for the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part II, 308, 279, 337, 338, 427 of IPC and under Section 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 read with Sections 25 / 305 ,181 and 185 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and under Section 66(i)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Petition under section 482 of CrPC was filed by the accused before the High Court for quashing charges. Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition to the extent of quashing charge u/s 304 IPC. The said order was challenged before the Apex Court and hon.Apex Court while setting aside the order of High Court directed to decide the question of framing charge under section 304 II at the appropriate stage. Hon. Apex Court in State Of Maharashtra vs Salman Salim Khan & Anr appeal (cri) coronavirus1508/2003 observed, "We are of the opinion that though it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under section 482 of the Code to quash charges framed by the trial court, same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, 1 | P a g e - Dr. Ajay Nathani would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charge can be done only at the stage of trial. By relying upon the decisions of the apex Court most of which were with reference to appeals arising out of convictions, we think the High Court was not justified in this case in giving a finding as to the non-existence of material to frame a charge for an offence punishable under section 304 Part II, IPC, therefore, so far as the finding given by the High Court is concerned, we are satisfied that it is too premature a finding and ought not to have been given at this stage. At the same time we are also in agreement with the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents that even the Sessions Court ought not to have expressed its views in such certain terms which indicates that the Sessions Court had taken a final decision in regard to the material to establish a charge punishable under section 304 Part II, IPC. Therefore, we think it appropriate that the findings in regard to the sufficiency or otherwise of the material to frame a charge punishable under section 304, Part II, IPC of both the courts below should be set aside and it should be left to be decided by the court trying the offence to alter or modify any such charge at an appropriate stage based on material produced by way of evidence. The next question which then requires our consideration is whether in view of our above finding, the charge framed by the Sessions Judge for an offence punishable under section 304 Part II, IPC be sustained or one under section 304A as has been done by the High Court, should be retained ? We have been informed that pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai, has already framed fresh charges under section 304A and other provisions mentioned hereinabove and the trial has commenced. Since any interference at this stage would not further the cause of justice and would lead only to delay the course of justice, we think it appropriate that the proceedings before the said Magistrate's Court should continue and the trial should proceed on the basis of the charges framed by it but we make it very clear that at any appropriate stage if the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to charge the respondent for a more serious offence than the one punishable under section 304A, he shall proceed to do so without in any manner being hindered or influenced by the observations or findings of the High Court in the impugned order or by the order of the Sessions Court which framed the charge punishable under section 304 Part II, IPC. Such decision of the Magistrate shall be purely based on the material brought in evidence at the trial. We make it clear that neither by sustaining the order of the High Court in remitting the trial to the court of Magistrate, nor by our observations in this judgment as to the acceptability or otherwise of the material now on record, we have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Whatever is observed by us in this judgment is solely for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.” In the mean while the trial pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence under section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code and other supplemental offences continued and 17 witnesses were examined before the Magistrate. At this stage of trial application was filed by the prosecution requesting to add offence under section 304 of Indian Penal Code. Fallacy is that the Supreme Court was not made aware either by advocate representing State or by the advocate representing the accused as to in which port 2 | P a g e - Dr. Ajay Nathani court the trial is proceeding when the hearing was going on before the Honorable Supreme Court and no request to stay the trial was made. The order of Supreme Court reflects this aspect. The magistrate allowed the application and remanded the matter to the court of sessions. The court of sessions received the proceeding along with the evidence of 17 witnesses recorded by the Magistrate which included the evidence of constable Mr. Patil. Mr. Patil was examined before the magistrate in the year 2006. In the year 2013 when the trial was again initiated before the court of sessions fresh trial was initiated and all the witnesses examined before the magistrate were examined again. Mr. Ravindra Patil was not examined as he was no more. Evidence of Mr. Ravindra Patil recorded by the magistrate was placed before the court of sessions and request to admit it by exercising powers under Section 33 Indian Evidence Act was made to the Court. The sessions court relied on the evidence of Ravindra Patil recorded before the magistrate and relying on evidence and correlated evidence came to conclusion that the accused was driving the car at the time of incident while he was in drunken condition and was aware of consequences of driving in such condition. The consequences did happen when he drove the car on the pavement causing death of a person sleeping on the pavement. The was therefore held guilty of culpable homicide by causing death with knowledge that his act will result in death of victim. State of Maharashtra VS Salman Khan I do not desire & I will not analyse the Judgement of the High Court. However, it is pertinent to mention that First Appeal filed by the accused on his conviction in year 2015 was decided in same year. Though the pendency of the First Appeals in High Court as mentioned by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kurshid Vs State of U.P.