Hit-and-run case: Verdict on Salman's plea deferred till June 24

Published: 10th June 2013 02:44 PM  |   Last Updated: 10th June 2013 02:44 PM   |  A+A-

By PTI

A sessions court today deferred till June 24 its order on an appeal filed by Bollywood actor Salman Khan against a magistrate's ruling invoking charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the 2002 hit-run-case involving him.

Sessions Judge U B Hejib was to dictate the order in the court today. However, as the court staff did not turn up due to heavy rains in the metropolis, Salman's lawyer sought adjournment in the case.

As the prosecutor did not object, the court deferred its verdict till June 24.

The judge had fixed June 10 for deciding the appeal after arguments concluded a month ago.

Advancing his argument against invoking the grave charge of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' (section 304 part II IPC), Ashok Mundargi had pleaded that the magistrate's order was "erroneous, bad in law and contrary to evidence on record."

The magistrate, he contended, had failed to appreciate that the actor had neither the intention (to kill people) nor the knowledge that his rash and negligent driving would kill a person and cause injury to four others.

The offence under this section attracts a ten-year jail term and is triable by a sessions court.

Salman was earlier tried by a magistrate under lesser charge of causing death by negligence (Section 304A of IPC), that provides for a maximum punishment of two years in jail.

However, in a twist to the case, the metropolitan magistrate, after examining 17 witnesses, had brought forth the more serious charge of culpable homicide against the 47-year-old superstar and transferred it to a sessions court for re-trial.

Salman's lawyer also filed written submissions on the appeal and made oral arguments.

Public Prosecutor Shankar Erande, while opposing Salman's appeal, said the magistrate had rightly invoked the charge of culpable homicide as he had committed a serious offence.

Erande argued that a prosecution witness Ravindra Patil (now deceased), a police bodyguard deployed for the actor's security and accompanying him at the time of the accident, had warned him not to drive rashly as it could lead to a mishap.

Yet, Khan did not pay heed and drove at a great speed.

The prosecutor submitted that Khan was drunk and his blood sample revealed 60 mg alcohol which was beyond the permissible limit.

In another development, advocate Abha Singh, appearing for activist Santosh Daundkar, had urged the court to permit her to intervene in the matter, saying section 301 of CrPc allowed her to assist the prosecutor.

Though the actor's counsel objected to Daundkar's plea for intervention, saying he had no locus standi in the matter, Public Prosecutor Erande said he had no objection.

Singh alleged that police had favoured Khan by not examining witnesses in the case in the last five years and insisted on the actor's regular appearance.

The court was also to give its ruling on Daundkar's petition today.

One person was killed and four others were injured when the Land Cruiser allegedly driven by Khan crushed a group of people sleeping on the pavement outside a bakery in suburban Bandra in the wee hours on September 28, 2002.

Stay up to date on all the latest Nation news with The New Indian Express App. Download now
(Get the news that matters from New Indian Express on WhatsApp. Click this link and hit 'Click to Subscribe'. Follow the instructions after that.)

Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp