Salman can't be convicted on evidence so far: HC

In a big relief to actor Salman Khan in the 2002 hit-and-run case, the Bombay High Court said Thursday that the actor couldn’t be convicted on the basis of the evidence so far produced by the prosecution.

The court asked Salman Khan to be personally present while the verdict would be pronounced. Salman’s lawyers sought time for the arrangements to be made. It is likely that the actor may present himself at the court by 1:30 pm.

On 28 September, 2002, the actor's car had rammed into a bakery in Bandra in which one person was killed and four others injured.

Earlier, the Bombay High Court, in its order on Wednesday, observed that Ravindra Patil, former police bodyguard of Bollywood star Salman Khan, was not a wholly reliable witness in the 2002 hit-and-run case.

The court also said that the prosecution had failed to prove Salman Khan was drunk.

Justice A.R. Joshi, who is hearing the appeal filed by Salman against his conviction for 'culpable



homicide not amounting to murder', during dictation, said there are three categories of witnesses in criminal cases. One is wholly reliable, the second is partially reliable, while the third is unreliable and for partially reliable witnesses, there should be corroborative evidence to prove the witness’ testimony.

“In the opinion of this court, Mr Patil is not a wholly reliable witness,” said the judge, adding that there has to be corroboration of evidence.

According to the judge, apart from Patil, no other witness had said that the appellant (Salman) was driving the car and that he was drunk at the time of the incident and hence, there is no corroborative evidence to support Patil’s claim. The judge also noted that Patil did not say anything about the actor being in a drunken state in his first statement.

The judge is yet to give his ruling on Patil’s evidence and what other testimonies and evidence have been accepted or rejected by the court.