Bollywood actor Salman Khan cleared in hit-and-run incident

The Mumbai High Court Thursday acquitted Bollywood star Salman Khan in 2002 hit-and-run case, reversing the order of a trial court which sentenced the actor to 5-year imprisonment earlier this year.

Justice A R Joshi, has for the past three days been dictating the verdict in the 2002 hit-and-run case involving Salman Khan. Investigation was conducted in faulty manner with scant regard to procedure.

Salman’s driver Ashok Singh, in his deposition as a defence witness, had told the trial court that it was he who was at the wheel and not the actor.

On May 6, 2015 a Mumbai Sessions Court sentenced him to five years in prison, post which Khan filed an appeal in the High Court. She was praying since morning for him to be acquitted and as soon as she heard that he is a free man, she broke down. Salman had appealed to the high court to overturn a sessions court judgment.

A judge in India had convicted the 49-year-old of culpable homicide over the hit-and-run, which happened at the end of a night out drinking in Mumbai in 2002.

The much anticipated verdict Thursday was widely covered by major media outlets which showed Khan arriving in court for the hearing. The court stated that the prosecution had failed to establish that Khan was driving the Toyota Land Cruiser and was drunk at the time of the accident.

Post-verdict, Salman completed various legal formalities, executing the personal bond in case the prosecution chose to appeal in the case, said Desai.

The judge rejected as “wholly unreliable” the statement of eyewitness Ravindra Patil, former police bodyguard of Salman, recorded by a Magistrate in which he had accused the actor of driving under the influence of liquor.

On the main aspects as to driving and drunkenness the prosecution has not brought any material evidence which spells out the offence of the accused the court said.

Actress-politician Hema Malini said:”We all feel good about him and this is a great news for all of us”.

“Even if Patil’s statement has to be considered as partially reliable, there has to be corroboration in evidence which does not exist in this case”, Joshi said.