Salman Khan Hit and Run Case Judgement – Full Text – Part 2

Check Out Part 2

Shengal also collected the hotel bills (Exh.50¬A to Exh.50¬D) about consumption of alcohol and snacks.
1    PW¬27 Shengal also collected parking tag from PW¬12 Kalpesh Verma who was working as a Parking Assistant in J.W. Marriot Hotel. The said parking tag is not on record. The statement of Kalpesh Verma was also recorded. Bandra Police Station also received C.A. report on 01.10.2002. C.A. report of the blood sample for alcohol test is at Exh.81. The said report is prepared by PW¬18 Dattatray Bhalshankar (Assistant Chemical Analyzer). PW¬27 also recorded the statements of injured persons Kalim Mohd. Pathan and Munna Khan. On 02.10.2002 PW¬27 also sent the articles collected by earlier Investigating Officer for forwarding to C.A. On 03.10.2002 PW¬27 Shengal also sent a letter to R.T.O., Tardeo, Andheri, and sought information about licence of the accused. RTO informed the police station that no licence was issued to Salman Khan. The statements of Mannu Khan, Kalim Mohd. Pathan, Ram Asare Pandey were also recorded u/s.164 of the Cr. P.C. by the ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra. The statement of Kamal Khan was also recorded on 04.10.2002.
2    On 07.10.2002 PW¬27 Shengal added Section 304¬II of the IPC and accordingly, information was submitted to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court. The vehicle Land Cruiser bearing No. MH¬01¬DA¬32 was returned to accused Salman Khan on the bond of Rs.15 Lacs as per the Court order.

1    The accused voluntarily surrendered in the police station on 07.10.2002 and arrest panchanama (Exh.154) was drawn. PW¬27 Shengal also recorded the statements of other witnesses. He also collected the Medical Certificates of the injured.
2    After completion of investigation, charge¬sheet came to be filed on 21.10.2002 in the 12th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bandra, Mumbai. After submitting the charge¬sheet, PW¬27 Shengal also received C.A. reports which are at Exh.157¬A to Exh.157¬E.
3    The ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai, on 31.01.2003, committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offence punishable under Section 304¬II of the I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
4    It is pertinent to note that the accused filed the Miscellaneous Application bearing No.463/03 in the Sessions Court contending that Sec.304¬II of the IPC is not attracted, but the said application was rejected by the Sessions Court.
5    It appears that the then In¬Charge Sessions Judge Shri Dholakia framed the charge against the accused u/s.304(II), 308, 279, 338, 337, 427 of the I.P.C. and u/s.134(A)(B) r/w. Sec.187, 3 r/w. Sec.181, 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act and u/s.66(i)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed for the trial.

28. The accused also preferred Criminal Writ Petition bearing No.2467/2003 u/s.482 of the Cr. P.C. in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court was pleased to allow the said application and the order of the Sessions Court framing the charge under Section 304¬II of the IPC was quashed while maintaining the order of the other charges. The order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the State of Maharashtra by filing Criminal Appeal bearing No.1508/2003. The Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the order of the Hon’ble High Court as well as the trial court and held as under:¬
“Therefore, we think it appropriate that the findings in regard to the sufficiency or otherwise of the material to frame a charge punishable under Section 304, Part II, IPC of both the courts below should be set aside and it should be left to be decided by the court trying the offence to alter or modify any such charge at an appropriate stage based on material produced by way of evidence.”
2    Further the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in the order that pursuant to the Judgment of the High Court, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bandra, has already framed fresh charges under Section 304(A) IPC and other provisions mentioned herein above and trial has commenced. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed as under:¬

“At any appropriate stage, if the ld. Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to charge the respondent for a more serious offence than the one punishable under Section 304¬A, he shall proceed to do so without in any manner being hindered or influenced by the observations or findings of the High Court or Sessions Court, shall be purely based on the material brought in evidence of the trial.”
1    It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has examined in all 17 witnesses in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra. The APP in the trial Court filed an application for framing additional charge under Section 304(II) of IPC and contended that the case be committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused also submitted the reply (Exh.28) to the said application. The ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the application of the APP and committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 31.01.2013 u/s.209 of the Cr. P.C. as offence u/s.304¬II of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
2    It is pertinent to note that the accused also moved Revision Application No.220/2013 in the Sessions Court against the order of the ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, but on 24.06.2013, the said revision application was rejected.
3    Charge is framed by my ld. Predecessor (H.H.J. Shri U.B. Hejib) against the accused u/s.304¬II, 337, 338 of the I.P.C. and u/s.3(1) r/w.181, 134 r/w.187, 187 and u/s.185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
1    The contents of the charge were read over to the accused to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed for the trial.
2    It is pertinent to note that the point arose before me as to whether the evidence led before the trial Court before committal is to be read or whether fresh trial is required to be ordered again. It is pertinent to note that after framing the charge, the matter was fixed for submitting the list of witnesses and also filing list of documents u/s.294 of the Cr. P.C. The ld. APP Mr. Kenjalkar submitted that the evidence led in the trial court before committal can be accepted otherwise the trial would be delayed. However, the ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade opposed the contention of the ld. APP and submitted that the charge u/s.304¬II of the IPC framed against the accused is a serious offence and punishment is provided to the extent of 10 years or with fine or both.
3    The ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case u/s.209 of the Cr. P.C. The ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade also quoted Section Section 323 of the Cr. P.C. before this Court. According to ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade, when the case is committed to the Court of Sessions, then Chapter XVIII shall apply to the commitment. It is pertinent to note that Chapter XVIII is dealing with the case before the Court of Sessions. The said Chapter deals with the provisions of Section 225 to 235 of the Cr. P.C.
4    After hearing the ld. APP and the ld. defence Counsel, this Court after considering the provisions of Section 209, 323 of the Cr. P.C. and also the provisions incorporated under Chapter XVIII and also provisions of Section 326 of the Cr. P.C., passed the detailed order below Exh.1 on 05.12.2013 that afresh trial be ordered against the accused. Neither state nor accused challenged the order of this court dated 5.12.2013.
37. The prosecution has examined 27 witnesses before me and they are as under:¬