Thursday , August 24 2017
Home / Entertainment / Bollywood / ‘I drank water, not alcohol’- Salman on Hit and run case

‘I drank water, not alcohol’- Salman on Hit and run case

Bollywood actor Salman Khan in a new statement said that he consumed water and not alcohol at a party in a Mumbai hours before his car mowed down a man and injured five people sleeping on a pavement in September 2002.

In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court , the actor said state police framed him in the hit-and-run case on the basis of fabricated evidence.

Salman requested the top court to uphold the Bombay high court order that acquitted him in the case. The Maharashtra government has appealed against the HC verdict.

The Bombay high court’s acquittal of Salman in December last year triggered angry reactions from the public.
A trial court had earlier convicted and sentenced Salman to five years in jail. His bodyguard, Ravindra Patil’s statement formed the basis of the conviction.

Salman said police deliberately ignored his friend Kamal Khan’s testimony, saying the actor’s driver was at the wheels during the accident.

“The respondent (Salman) drank some water at Rain bar. The respondent did not consume any alcohol. The prosecution has not presented any eye witness who saw the respondent consume alcohol,” read the affidavit.
The police produced fabricated bills of the bar to frame the star, it said.

He complained the investigators had not conducted a “proper forensic examination” of his vehicle involved in the accident.
In its appeal, the Maharashtra government said the HC erroneously disbelieved Patil’s statement and acquitted Salman. The driver, Ashok Singh, mysteriously surfaced 13 years after the incident.

According to Salman, his friend Kamal Khan was present in the car besides Patil. He was an eye-witness to the incident but the prosecution deliberately did not examine him, Salman said.
Police dropped Kamal from the list of witnesses, saying he ignored the summons sent to him. Salman said the report showing his friend did not receive the summons was “fake”.

“This was a serious flaw on the part of the prosecution to the case sought to be made out against the respondent, and had to he led to an adverse inference that Kamal Salman would tell the truth, which would go against the prosecution”, Salman said.