Salman Khan Hit and Run Case Judgement – Full Text – Part 3

We are first to report the full text of Salman Khan Hit and Run Case Judgement in Full length. Mr. Sachin Vaze, Ex Cop of Mumbai, who runs a law firm in Thane City provided us the copy of this judgement.

Check Out Part 3

38. Before recording evidence of PW¬26 Rajendra Genbapu Kadam and PW¬27 Kisan Narayan Shengal ( Investigating Officers), ld. SPP Mr. Gharat moved an application (Exh.131) u/s. 33 of the Indian Evidence Act for taking the evidence of Ravindra Himmatrao Patil and Dr. Sanap on record and also admitting the same u/s.33 of the Indian Evidence Act. The evidence of Ravindra Patil was recorded before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bandra, in C.C. No.490/PS/2005 prior to committal. Complainant Patil was expired on 3.10.2007. According to ld. SPP, the accused had cross¬examined the complainant Ravindra Patil thoroughly and the ingredients of Section 33 are fully attracted. The ld. defence Counsel objected the said application by filing the reply (Exh.136). The ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Another [(2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1]. Ld. Counsel Mr. Shivade fairly submitted that the evidence of Mr.Ravindra Himmatrao Patil can be taken on record and be exhibited and the admissibility of the evidence of Ravindra Patil can be decided at the time of final argument. Ld. SPP Mr. Gharat also fairly considered the said issue. Hence, in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal, the evidence of complainant Ravindra Patil recorded in C.C. No.490/PS/2005 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was taken on record and exhibited (Exh. 141). The admissibility of the evidence of Ravindra Patil would be decided after final hearing in the judgment in view of the ratio laid down in Bipin Shantilal Panchal and State of Gujarat and Another. The prosecution as well as defence were permitted to refer the evidence of Ravindra Patil during the examination of PW¬26 Rajendra Genbapu Kadam and also the Investigating Officer PW¬27 Kisan Narayan Shengal for proving omissions and contradictions, if any.
1    It is pertinent to note that in the say (Exh.136) submitted by the defence to the application (Exh.131) u/s.33 of the Evidence Act, it is contended by the defence that “the defence is not challenging the injuries suffered by the deceased and cause of death mentioned in the postmortem report and no prejudice is caused to the defence, if Dr. R.L. Sanap is not examined”. So in view of the contentions of the defence and also considering the said aspects and as defence admitted the postmortem report, if Dr. R.L. Sanap is not examined, no prejudice would be caused to prosecution also. Hence, application (Exh.131) is partly allowed on 07.03.2015. Whether the evidence of Ravindra Patil recorded in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate before committal is relevant, admissible and can be relied under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act will be discussed in the later part of judgment.
2    The statement of the accused is also recorded u/s.313 of the Cr. P.C. It is the defence of the accused that at the time of the alleged incident, he was not driving the vehicle, but one Ashok Singh was driving the said vehicle and the tyre was burst in the incident. According to the accused, Ashok Singh went to the police station to state that he was driving the vehicle, but the police did not record his statement. Further according to the accused, PW¬18 Dattatray Khobrajirao Bhalshankar is not an expert and he did not examine the blood sample. According to the accused, false case is filed under the pressure of Media. The accused also submitted his further statement vide Exh.171¬A. According to the accused, there were four persons present in the car at the time of the incident. Ashok Singh was driving the vehicle. The accused was sitting near the driver’s seat at the left side. The complainant Ravindra Patil was sitting behind the driver and Kamal Khan sat on the back left seat. According to the accused, when car reached Hill Road via Manual Gonsalves Road, suddenly front left tyre of the car was burst, thereby the car was pulled to the left side. Ashok Singh tried to apply breaks and tried to control the car, but by then the car had climbed on the steps of American Express Laundry and hit the shutter and stopped. There was no footpath outside American Express Laundry at that time. Further according to the accused, he tried to get out of the car, but found the door next to him was jammed. Ashok Singh, with great difficulty, got down from the driver’s side. By that time, a lot of people had gathered around and there was a lot of confusion and chaos. As the left front door was jammed, the accused crossed over to the driver’s seat from the front left seat, where he had been sitting and got out from the driver’s door. According to the accused, he wanted to move the car, but then he realized that people were trapped beneath the car and shouting for help. According to the accused, they tried to lift the car, but could not do so as it was dangerous to move the car manually. According to the accused, he instructed Ashok Singh to call the police for help and inform Bandra Police Station about the incident. The accused saw Francis Fernandis and his wife, to whom the accused knew, had also come to the spot. They asked the accused to leave the spot as the crowd was getting violent and they had also beaten Ravindra Patil and Ashok Singh. The accused waited there for a few minutes. Francis’s wife stopped a passing car and they made the accused sit and asked him to go home for his safety. They also told the accused that they would be taking the injured to Holy Family hospital. Kamal Khan had already gone away.
41. According to the accused, he came to know later that one person had died and four persons were injured. At about 10.30 a.m. on 28.09.2002, the accused received a message that Ashok Singh had been detained in Bandra Police Station. The accused went to Bandra Police Station to find out what had happened and noticed that a violent mob had gathered outside and they were shouting slogans against him. Ashok Singh came and told the accused that there was something wrong as the police had not recorded his statement. The accused met police officer who told him that there was tremendous pressure on him to arrest the accused. The accused told the police that he was not driving the car, but the police did not listen and arrested him in a false case. According to the accused, he went to Bhabha Hospital and then to
J.J. Hospital and in both hospitals, the Doctors applied spirit to his hand and took his blood samples. According to the accused, PW¬18 Dattatray Bhalshankar does not know anything about the chemical analysis and he is not an expert. PW¬12 Kalpesh Verma was never present and he has been planted by the police as the real valet Yogesh Kadam refused to give false statement as desired by police. According to the accused, PW¬19 Rajendra Keskar has never inspected the car and given the report to suit the prosecution case. According to the accused, the police have prepared the false statements of the witnesses and filed the false charge¬sheet.

1    I have heard Mr. Gharat, ld. SPP for State, and Mr. Shivade, ld. Advocate for the accused, at length. Exh.181 written notes filed by SPP and Exh. 184 written notes filed Ld. Adv. Shri Shivade. I have also gone through the evidence recorded before me minutely.
2    Following points arise for my consideration and I have recorded my findings thereon for the reasons as follow:¬


POINTS
FINDINGS
1. Does the prosecution prove that the evidence of complainant Ravindra Patil recorded in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is relevant, admissible, relied and be admitted u/s.33 of the Indian Evidence Act ?
Yes
2. Does the prosecution prove that on 28.09.2002 at about 02.45 a.m. near American Express Cleaners, St. Andrews Road and Ramdas Nayak Marg (Hill Road), Bandra (W.), the accused drove the car Land Cruiser bearing no. MH­01­DA­32 in a rash and negligent manner, under the influence of alcohol with the knowledge that people are sleeping in front of American Express Cleaners and also with knowledge that by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and under the influence of liquor, the accused was likely to cause death and thereby caused the death of Nurulla Shaikh and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.304­II of the IPC ?
Proved.
3. Does prosecution prove that at the same date, time and place, the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others and caused hurt to Kalim Mohd. Pathan and Munna Khan and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.337 of the IPC ?
Proved.
4. Does prosecution prove that at the same date, time and place, the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused grievous hurt to Abdul Rauf Shaikh and Muslim Shaikh and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.338 of the IPC ?
Proved.
5. Does prosecution prove that at the same date, time and place, while driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the accused was not holding a valid driving licence and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.3(1) r/w. 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act ?
Proved.
6. Does prosecution prove that at the same date, time and place, the accused did not take reasonable steps to secure the medical aid to the victim persons by conveying them to nearest Medical Practitioner or hospital and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.134 of the Motor Vehicles Act punishable u/s.187 of the Motor Vehicles Act?
Proved.
7. Does the prosecution prove that the accused failed to give information about the incident to the police and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.187 of the Motor Vehicles Act ?
Proved
8. Does the prosecution prove that the alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml. i.e. . 0.062 % mg was found in the blood of accused and the accused was under the influence of alcohol to that extent so as to incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s.185 of the Motor Vehicles Act? Proved. 9. What order ? As per final order.

 

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this:
Web Design BangladeshBangladesh Online Market