Daisy Shah to meet Salman to celebrate his acquittal

Salman Khan had run his vehicle over a group of five persons who were sleeping in front of a suburban bakery on the pavement on the night of 28 September 2002.

Actor Salman Khan broke down as the judge at the Bombay high court pronounced the order acquitting him of all charges in the 2002 hit-and-run case.

While Salman Khan walks away free, the legal heirs of the deceased Nurulla Sharif are contesting in the Bombay High Court as to who would get the Rs10 lakh compensation that the actor had deposited in the court in 2002.

Salman moved the Bombay High Court, which opines that section 304-II of IPC could not be applied to the case in June.

The much anticipated verdict Thursday was widely covered by major media outlets which showed Khan arriving in court for the hearing.

For the uninitiated, Salman Khan’s involvement in the 2002 hit-and-run case has seen several ups and downs over the last 13 years. “His conviction and sentence stand quashed”, said Justice AR Joshi, pronouncing the judgment.

Reading out the verdict yesterday, the High Court judge said: “The decision of the trial court is set aside”.

Police bodyguard of Salman Khan, Ravindra Patil, who filed the first FIR and alleged that Salman was behind the wheel when the incident happened, died of TB on 3rd October.

The Mumbai-based textile and apparel manufacturing company, is into an exclusive license agreement with Being Human-The Salman Khan Foundation for designing, marketing and distributing Being Human Clothing Products.

Salman, clad in a dark, checked shirt and jeans, heard out the verdict without emotions but was later seen wiping tears in the court. “I thank my family, friends and fans for their support and prayers”.

Salman was charged with culpable homicide, a charge which was later dropped.

Justice Joshi said that the court came to the conclusion because the prosecution failed to bring evidence reasonably.

The prosecution can appeal against the latest verdict in the Supreme Court.

Holding that the evidence was “weak”, Justice Joshi dwelt upon the shortcomings in the prosecution’s case, including not recording evidence of important witnesses and also omissions and contradictions in the evidence of injured witnesses.

“The prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused (Salman)”.