2002 hit-and-run case: Drank only water, Salman Khan tells court

New Delhi: Salman Khan has told the Supreme Court that he had merely drunk water and not alcohol on the September 2002 night his SUV ran over pavement sleepers, killing one and injuring four. The actor on Wednsday placed an affidavit before the apex court, which is hearing the Maharashtra government's appeal against his December 10 acquittal by Bombay High Court. A sessions court had last May convicted Salman and sentenced him to five years. According to the high court, the prosecution had "failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt" that Salman was drunk and was driving the car, as testified before a magistrate by the actor's personal police bodyguard, the late Ravindra Patil.

The high court judge had rejected Patil's statement as "wholly unreliable", saying he had made subsequent "improvements" to his initial statement. On the other hand, the high court refused to reject the testimony of Salman's family driver of 22 years, Ashok Singh, who had told the trial court - more than 12 years after the accident - that he and not the actor had been at the wheel. Following the state government's appeal, the apex court bench of Justices J.S. Khehar and C. Nagappan had in February sought the actor's response. In his affidavit, Salman has accused the prosecution of deliberately failing to record the testimony of his friend Kamal Khan, a British citizen who he says was in the SUV along with Salman, Patil and Ashok. "The respondent (Salman) drank some water at Rain Bar. The respondent did not consume any alcohol. The prosecution has not presented any eyewitness who saw the respondent consume alcohol," Salman has claimed. "It is also shocking that the police fabricated evidence by collecting random bills from Rain Bar, and tampering with these to try and implicate the respondent. "Further, it is shocking that the police did not conduct a proper forensic examination of the said vehicle." Salman has argued that the law requires the police to question all eyewitnesses unless they are repetitive, but only Patil was examined before a magistrate. "Kamal Khan was not examined by the prosecution despite being listed as a prosecution witness, and having attended the chief metropolitan magistrate's court at least three times at the instance of prosecution in order to give a bond that he would attend when summoned," the affidavit said. He has argued that Kamal wasn't questioned for fear that he "would tell the truth, which would go against the prosecution". Salman has accused the prosecution of filing a "fabricated" report claiming it had served summons on Kamal but he had ignored them. He has further alleged that the prosecution told the sessions court about Patil's death, which had occurred in October 2007, only on February 20 last year with a plea that his recorded evidence be considered. Attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi, leading Maharashtra's appeal, told the court that Salman's claim that Ashok was driving the car was "feeble and false". At an earlier hearing, Rohatgi had highlighted that Ashok, despite being with the family for over two decades, had surfaced more than 12 years after the incident - that too only after the trial had reached the stage of defence evidence. One of the injured, Firoz Shaikh, too has challenged Salman's acquittal. Maharashtra's appeal says there are at least 46 reasons for reversing the acquittal.