No running away from hit-and- run case for Salman

Prosecution rejects Khan’s claim of driver’s presence in the car

MUMBAI: The prosecution in the Salman Khan hit-and-run case made a fervent plea to the court on Wednesday, rejecting the claim by the Bollywood actor’s driver Ashok Singh that he was driving the ‘killer’ vehicle during the 2002 accident, in which a pavement dweller was killed.

Rejecting and disbelieving Salman’s submission that he was not driving the vehicle and the subsequent admission by his driver, public prosecutor Pradeep Gharat questioned the presence of a fourth person in the car.

In the past 13 years, the presence of only three people was known — Salman, his friend and singer Kamaal Khan, and bodyguard, late Ravindra Patil, the public prosecutor said.

“He (Ashok Singh) appears to have been brought in now,” Gharat told Additional Sessions Judge DW Deshpande, during the resumption of the final arguments in the September 28, 2002, accident case, which also left four others injured.

He pointed out that Salman revealed the details only when the actor’s statement was being recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

“You never ever mentioned the fourth person. Can this piece of evidence be accepted.” Gharat asked defence lawyer Shrikant Shivade.

None of the witnesses examined in the court had given this suggestion or implied that the new piece of evidence claimed by Salman was in fact true, the prosecutor said.

Even after recording the statement, when the court asked Salman whether he wanted to examine himself, he replied in the negative, as he would have been exposed in the cross-examination, Gharat continued.

He said that since the beginning of the trial, Salman had accepted that the vehicle was owned by him; it was established by the documentation and proved it was in his possession at the relevant time.

But even at that stage, he did not disclose that driver Singh was driving the vehicle, Gharat told the court.

Moreover, questioning Singh’s statement in which he spoke of a burst tyre and losing control of the vehicle, Gharat argued that the Toyoto Land Cruiser was a sophisticated, modern vehicle which would have given warnings to the driver of any problem.

Accordingly, the prosecutor contended that it was difficult to believe the driver’s version of the accident.

In a major development in the trial, driver Singh earlier told Sessions Judge DW Deshpande that he was at the wheel of the SUV which was not speeding when its tyre burst, but the car dragged to the left and he lost control.

Although he tried hard to apply the brakes, the vehicle had already climbed the stairs of the American Express Bakery, resulting in the accident.

The hearing will resume on April 6. 

Published in The Express Tribune, April 3^rd,  2015.

Like Life & Style on Facebook, follow @ETLifeandStyle on Twitter for the latest in fashion, gossip and entertainment.