Salman Khan's Trial Court Judgment

Exh.
190
INTHECOURTOFSESSIONSFORGR.BOMBAYATBOMBAY
SESSIONSCASENO.240OF2013
(C.C.No.490/PS/2005)
TheStateofMaharashtra
(BandraP.Stn.C.R.No.326/2002
)
)
...Complainant
)
)
)
)
...Accused
V/s.
SalmanSalimKhan
Age:49yrs.,Occ.CineArtist
Add.GalaxiApartment,B.J.Road,
Bandstand,Bandra(W.),Mumbai.
CORAM:HisHonourTheAdditionalSessions
JudgeShriD.W.Deshpande(C.R.No.52)
DATE:
6thMay,2015.
Mr.Gharat,SpecialP.P.forState.
Mr. Shivade, Counsel for accused, along with Advocate Mr. Anand
Desai,AdvocateMr.NiravShah,AdvocateMs.ChandrimaMitraand
AdvocateMr.ManharSainii/b.M/s.DSKLegal.
JUDGMENT
1.
AccusedSalmanSalimKhan,famousCineActor,facedtrial
on the allegation that in the intervening night of 27.9.2002 and

28.09.2002 at about 02.45 a.m. drove Toyota Land Cruiser bearing
No.MH01DA32inarashandnegligentmanner,undertheinfluence
ofalcoholwithknowledgethatpeopleweresleepingonthefootpathin
frontofAmericanExpressLaundry,causeddeathofonepersonandalso
injuredfourothersbyrunningcaroverthemandrammedtheshutterof
AmericanExpressLaundrypunishableunderSections304PartII,337,
...2/
SessionsCaseNo.240/2013
..2..
Judgment
338oftheIndianPenalCodeandunderSections134(A)(B)r/w.187,
181and185oftheMotorVehiclesAct,1988.
2.
Theprosecutioncaseagainsttheaccusedisasunder:
3.
ComplainantRavindraHimmatraoPatilwasdeputedasa
BodyGuardofaccused.Hewashavingthedutyhoursfrom08.00p.m.
to08.00a.m.Heusedtoremainalongwiththeaccusedasapartofhis
duty.On27.09.2002atabout08.00p.m.RavindraPatiljoinedhisduty
asasecuritypersonforaccused.
4.
On27.09.2002atabout09.30p.m.,theaccusedandhis
friendKamalKhancameoutsideofthehouseastheywantedtovisit
RainHotel,Juhu.TheaccusedwashavingvehicleLandCruiserbearing
no.MH01DA32(forthesakeofbrevity,hereinafterreferredtoasthe
saidcar).ThecomplainantRavindraPatil,KamalKhansatinthecar.
Theaccuseddrovethesaidcar. ThecarreachednearRainBarand
Restaurant. The complainant was asked to wait outside and the
accusedandKamalKhanwentinsidethehotel.
5.
SohelKhanisbrotheroftheaccusedSalmanKhan.Sohel
Khan was also having a bodyguard (PW6 Balu Laxman) at relevant

timewhometRavindraPatiloutsideRainBar. PW6BaluLaxman
informedRavindraPatilthatSohelKhanhadalsocomethere.
6.
At about 01.30 a.m. the accused and Kamal Khan came
outsidetheRainBar.FromRainBar,theaccusedthenstartedforgoing
...3/
..3..
Judgment
to J.W. Mariot Hotel. The accused was driving the vehicle.

ComplainantRavindraPatilsatontheseatneardriver'sseat. Kamal
Khansatontherearseat.ThentheywenttoJ.W.MariotHotel.The
accused and Kamal Khan went inside the hotel and complainant
RavindraPatilwaswaitingoutside.
7.
Atabout02.15a.m.on28.09.2002theaccusedandKamal
Khancameoutfromthehotel.Theaccusedsatonthedriver'sseatand
complainantRavindraPatilsatneardriver'sseat.Thesaidcarcameon
St.AndrewsRoad.Theaccusedwasdrunkandwasdrivingthesaidcar
atthespeedof90to100kilometersperhour.St.AndrewsRoadand
Hill Road joined at the junction. Prior to reaching the car at the
junctionofSt.AndrewsRoadandHillRoad,thecomplainantRavindra
Patilinformedtheaccusedtolowerthespeedofthecarinviewofthe
rightturnahead.Theaccuseddidnotpayanyattention.Theaccused
could not control his car while taking right turn and went on the
footpath.Thepeopleweresleepingonthefootpath.Thesaidcarran
overthepersonssleepingonthefootpathandclimbedthethreestairs
andrammedtheshutterofAmericanLaundry. Therebythesaidcar
broketheshutterandwentinsideabout3andfeet.
8.
Thepeopleonwhosepersonthesaidcarranshoutedand
therebyotherpersonsgathered. Thepeoplegatheredsurroundedthe
car.Thepeoplebecamefuriousbecauseoftheincident.Somehowthe
complainant,SalmanKhanandKamalKhancameoutofthesaidcar.
ThecomplainantRavindraPatilshowedhisidentitycardandinformed
themthatheisapolicepersonnel,therebythepeoplewerepacified.
...4/
9.
..4..
Judgment
TheaccusedSalmanKhanandKamalKhanranawayfrom
thespot.ComplainantRavindraPatilsawonepersonseriouslyinjured
beneaththesaidcarhavingmultipleinjuriesandalsotherewerefour
injuredpersonsbelowthecar.ControlRoomwasinformed.Within5
minutes,Bandrapolicearrived.Thepolicerescuedtheinjuredpersons
and dead body of Nurulla was removed from beneath the car. The
injuredweresenttoBhabhaHospital.
10.
PW26RajendraKadamreceivedatelephonecallfroman
unknownpersonatabout02.45a.m.on28.09.2002abouttheincident.
Heimmediatelycameonthespotwithpolice.HesawoneLandCruiser
vehicle rammed into the shutter of American Express Laundry. The
PoliceInspector Pardhiandstaffalsoarrived onthe spot. Ravindra
Patilwasalsopresentonthespot.Acranewascalledtoliftthevehicle
inordertoremovethepersonlyingbeneaththecar.
11.
PW26RajendraKadamdrawnspotpanchanama(Exh.28)
in presence of PW1 Sambha Gauda. The spot was shown by the

complainantRavindraPatil.PW26Kadamseizedthearticleslyingon
thespoti.e.fiberglass,bloodstainedsoil,nameplate,piecesofbroken
glass,sampleofcolourscratchofshutterofAmericanExpressLaundry.
PW26Kadamalsoopenedthedoorsofthevehicleandtookoutthe
papersofthevehicleaswellasthekey.Thearticlescametobeseized
and sealed and also label having signatures of panchas and PW26
Kadamwasalsoaffixed.
...5/
12.
..5..
Judgment
PW26alsomade inquirywiththe complainant Ravindra
Patilwhoiseyewitnesstotheincident.Herecordedthecomplaintof
complainantRavindraPatil(Exh.P1).
13.
In the incident, Nurulla was expired and PW2 Muslim
Shaikh, PW3MannuKhan,PW4Mohd.Kalim IqbalPathan,PW11

Mohd. Abdulla Shaikh were injured in the incident. Abdulla and
MuslimShaikhsustainedgrievousinjuries. MannuandMohd.Kalim
Pathansustainedsimpleinjuries. ThedeadbodyofNurullawassent
forpostmortem.
14.
Thepostmortemreport(Exh.20)wasadmittedbydefence
aswellasinjurycertificatesofthewitnessesAbdullaRaufShaikh,Kalim
Mohd.AbdulPathanandMuslimNiyamatShaikharealsoadmittedby
thedefence(Exh.21,Exh.22,Exh.23respectively). Intheevidenceof
Investigating Officer PW27 Shengal, exhibits were given to injury
certificates of Kalim Mohd. Pathan (Exh.151), Munnabhai Khan
(Exh.152),AbdulRaufShaikh(Exh.155)andMuslimShaikh(Exh.156)
beingadmittedbydefence.
15.
PW26KadamrecordedstatementsofAbdulandMuslim.
Theoffencesu/s.304A,279,338oftheIPCandu/s.134oftheMotor
VehiclesActwereregistered.PW26Kadamalsodrawnmap(Exh.143)
ofthespotofincidentinpresenceofcomplainantRavindraPatil.
16.
PW26 Kadam also visited Galaxi Apartment where the
accusedwasresiding,buthewasnotfound.Thespotofincidentwasat
...6/
..6..
Judgment
the distance of 200 meters from the house of the accused. The
investigationwasthenentrustedtoPoliceInspectorPardhi.
17.
On 29.09.2002 PW19 Rajendra Keskar, RTO Inspector,
inspectedthevehicleandsubmittedareport(Exh.84).Nomechanical
defectwasnoticedinthevehicle.
18.
PW27 Kisan Shengal was working as a Senior Police
InspectorinBandraPoliceStation. PW26alsoinformedhiminthe
early hours of 28.09.2002 about the incident. Immediately PW27
KisanShengalcametothepolicestationandwhilecomingtothepolice
station,hevisitedthespotofincident. P.I.Pardhialreadydeployed
bandobastonthespot.
19.
PW27ShengalproceededtoGalaxyApartmenttosearch
the accused, but he did not find the accused in the house. PW27
receivedasecretinformationaboutvisitoftheaccusedatthehouseof
hisAdvocateinAlmedaPark.Accordingly,theaccusedwastracedout
inthehouseofAdvocateMr.JamirKhan. Theaccusedwastakenin
possessionandbroughtinthepolicestationwherearrestpanchanama
wasdrawnatabout11.00a.m.TheaccusedwasthensenttoBhabha
hospitalformedicalexaminationandalsoforbloodsamplealongwith
PSISuryavanshiandpolicestaff.SuryavanshiinformedPW27thatin
BhabhaHospitalthereisnofacilityforcollectingthebloodsample.The
accusedwasthensenttoJ.J.Hospitalatabout01.30p.m.alongwith
Suryavanshi,PSISalunkheandpolicestaff. BloodsampleofSalman
KhanforalcoholwastakenbyPW20Dr.ShashikantPawar.Thesealed
...7/
..7..
Judgment
envelopcontainingthebloodsampleofSalmanKhanwasthenbrought
tothepolicestation. AstherewasSaturdayandSunday,PW27kept
thebloodsampleinfridge.Theaccusedwasalsoreleasedonbail.PW
27Shengalalsodemandedlicencefromtheaccused. Nolicencewas
produced. Offence u/s.3 r/w.181 of the Motor Vehicles Act also
registeredagainsttheaccused. PoliceInspectorPardhialsorecorded
the statements of witnesses. PW27 Shengal also investigated the
addressoftheregisteredownerfromthexeroxcopiesofthedocuments
foundin the car. The vehicle was registeredin the nameof Mohd.
AbdulRehman,residentof55ShivkrupaBuilding,L.J.Road,Mahim,
Mumbai, but the address was found false. The statements of Amin
Kasim Shaikh, Ram Suresh Ram Lakhan Sonkar, Sachin Gangaram
Kadamandotherswerealsorecorded. PW27Shengalalsorecorded
supplementarystatementofcomplainantRavindraPatilon01.10.2002.
HesentlettertoC.A.on30.09.2002.TheteamofForensicLaboratory
inspectedthevehicleandtooksomescrapingsfromthevehicleaswell
ascollectedthesamplesfromthespotandalsoincriminatingmaterial.
PW27ShengalsentthesamplestotheC.A. Healsosenttheblood
sampleoftheaccusedtoC.A.,Kalina,on30.09.2002throughConstable
PW21Borade.
20.
PW27 Investigating Officer Shengal also recorded
statement of Ram Adhar Pandey on the spot. He also visited J.W.

Mariot Hotel and Rain Bar Restaurant, Juhu. He also recorded
statements of Anurudha Subroto Nandi, Wilfred George Kutti and
others.PW27alsorecordedstatementsofPW9RizwanAliRakhangi
from Rain Bar and PW5 Malay Bag, waiter from Rain Bar. PW27
...8/
..8..
Judgment
Shengal also collected the hotel bills (Exh.50A to Exh.50D) about

consumptionofalcoholandsnacks.
21.
PW27 Shengal also collected parking tag from PW12
KalpeshVermawhowasworkingasaParkingAssistantinJ.W.Marriot
Hotel.Thesaidparkingtagisnotonrecord.ThestatementofKalpesh
Vermawasalsorecorded. Bandra PoliceStation alsoreceived C.A.
reporton01.10.2002.C.A.reportofthebloodsampleforalcoholtestis
atExh.81.ThesaidreportispreparedbyPW18DattatrayBhalshankar
(AssistantChemicalAnalyzer).PW27alsorecordedthestatementsof
injuredpersonsKalimMohd.PathanandMunnaKhan.On02.10.2002
PW27alsosentthearticlescollectedbyearlierInvestigatingOfficerfor
forwardingtoC.A.On03.10.2002PW27Shengalalsosentaletterto
R.T.O.,Tardeo,Andheri,andsoughtinformationaboutlicenceofthe
accused.RTOinformedthepolicestationthatnolicencewasissuedto
SalmanKhan. ThestatementsofMannuKhan,KalimMohd.Pathan,
RamAsarePandeywerealsorecordedu/s.164oftheCr.P.C.bytheld.
MetropolitanMagistrate,12th Court,Bandra. ThestatementofKamal
Khanwasalsorecordedon04.10.2002.
22.
On07.10.2002PW27ShengaladdedSection304IIofthe
IPC and accordingly, information was submitted to the Metropolitan

MagistrateCourt.ThevehicleLandCruiserbearingNo.MH01DA32
wasreturnedtoaccusedSalmanKhanonthebondofRs.15Lacsasper
theCourtorder.
...9/
23.
..9..
Judgment
The accusedvoluntarilysurrenderedin the police station
on07.10.2002andarrestpanchanama(Exh.154)wasdrawn. PW27
Shengal also recorded the statements of other witnesses. He also
collectedtheMedicalCertificatesoftheinjured.
24.
Aftercompletionofinvestigation,chargesheetcametobe
filedon21.10.2002inthe12thMetropolitanMagistrateCourt,Bandra,
Mumbai. After submitting the chargesheet, PW27 Shengal also
receivedC.A.reportswhichareatExh.157AtoExh.157E.
25.
The ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra,
Mumbai,on31.01.2003,committedthecasetotheCourtofSessionsas
theoffencepunishableunderSection304IIoftheI.P.C.isexclusively
triablebytheCourtofSessions.
26.
It is pertinent to note that the accused filed the
Miscellaneous Application bearing No.463/03 in the Sessions Court

contending that Sec.304II of the IPC is not attracted, but the said
applicationwasrejectedbytheSessionsCourt.
27.
It appears that the then InCharge Sessions Judge Shri
Dholakiaframedthechargeagainsttheaccusedu/s.304(II),308,279,
338,337,427oftheI.P.C.andu/s.134(A)(B)r/w.Sec.187, 3r/w.
Sec.181,185oftheMotorVehiclesActandu/s.66(i)(b)oftheBombay
Prohibition Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and
claimedforthetrial.
...10/
28.
..10..
Judgment
TheaccusedalsopreferredCriminalWritPetitionbearing
No.2467/2003 u/s.482 of the Cr. P.C. in the Hon'ble Bombay High

Court.TheHon'bleBombayHighCourtwaspleasedtoallowthesaid
application and the order of the Sessions Court framing the charge
under Section 304II of the IPC was quashed while maintaining the
order of the other charges. The order of the Hon'ble Bombay High
CourtwaschallengedbeforetheHon'bleApexCourtbytheStateof
Maharashtra by filing Criminal Appeal bearing No.1508/2003. The
Hon'bleApexCourtsetasidetheorderoftheHon'bleHighCourtas
wellasthetrialcourtandheldasunder:
Therefore, we think it appropriate that the
findingsin regardtothe sufficiency or otherwise of
the material to frame a charge punishable under
Section 304, Part II, IPC of both the courts below
shouldbesetasideanditshouldbelefttobedecided
bythecourttryingtheoffencetoalterormodifyany
suchchargeatanappropriatestagebasedonmaterial
producedbywayofevidence.
29.
FurthertheHon'bleApexCourtobservedintheorderthat
pursuant to the Judgment of the High Court, the Metropolitan

Magistrate Court, Bandra, has already framed fresh charges under
Section304(A)IPCandotherprovisionsmentionedhereinaboveand
trial has commenced. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed as
under:
Atanyappropriatestage,iftheld.Magistratecomes
to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to
...11/
..11..
Judgment
chargetherespondentforamoreseriousoffencethan
the one punishable under Section 304A, he shall
proceed to do so without in any manner being
hinderedorinfluencedbytheobservationsorfindings
oftheHighCourtorSessionsCourt,shallbepurely
basedonthematerialbroughtinevidenceofthetrial.
30.
Itispertinenttonotethattheprosecutionhasexaminedin
all17witnessesintheCourtofMetropolitanMagistrate,Bandra.The
APPinthetrialCourtfiledanapplicationforframingadditionalcharge
underSection304(II)ofIPCandcontendedthatthecasebecommitted
totheCourtofSessions.Theaccusedalsosubmittedthereply(Exh.28)
to the said application. The ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan
MagistrateallowedtheapplicationoftheAPPandcommittedthecase
to the Court of Sessions on 31.01.2013 u/s.209 of the Cr. P.C. as
offence u/s.304II of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions.
31.
ItispertinenttonotethattheaccusedalsomovedRevision
ApplicationNo.220/2013intheSessionsCourtagainsttheorderofthe
ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, but on 24.06.2013, the
saidrevisionapplicationwasrejected.
32.
Chargeisframedbymyld.Predecessor(H.H.J.ShriU.B.
Hejib) against the accused u/s.304II, 337, 338 of the I.P.C. and
u/s.3(1)r/w.181,134r/w.187,187andu/s.185oftheMotorVehicles
Act.
...12/
33.
..12..
Judgment
Thecontentsofthechargewerereadovertotheaccusedto
whichtheaccuseddidnotpleadguiltyandclaimedforthetrial.
34.
Itispertinenttonotethatthepointarosebeforemeasto
whethertheevidenceledbeforethetrialCourtbeforecommittalisto
bereadorwhetherfreshtrialisrequiredtobeorderedagain. Itis
pertinenttonotethatafterframingthecharge,thematterwasfixedfor
submittingthelistofwitnessesandalsofilinglistofdocumentsu/s.294
oftheCr.P.C.Theld.APPMr.Kenjalkarsubmittedthattheevidence
ledinthetrialcourtbeforecommittalcanbeacceptedotherwisethe
trialwouldbedelayed.However,theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadeopposed
thecontentionoftheld.APPandsubmittedthatthechargeu/s.304II
of the IPC framed against the accused is a serious offence and
punishmentisprovidedtotheextentof10yearsorwithfineorboth.
35.
The ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case
u/s.209 of the Cr. P.C. The ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade also quoted
SectionSection323oftheCr.P.C.beforethisCourt.Accordingtold.
Advocate Mr. Shivade, when the case is committed to the Court of
Sessions, then Chapter XVIII shall apply to the commitment. It is
pertinenttonotethatChapterXVIIIisdealingwiththecasebeforethe
CourtofSessions.ThesaidChapterdealswiththeprovisionsofSection
225to235oftheCr.P.C.
36.
Afterhearingtheld.APPandtheld.defenceCounsel,this
CourtafterconsideringtheprovisionsofSection209,323oftheCr.
...13/
..13..
Judgment
P.C.andalsotheprovisionsincorporatedunderChapterXVIIIandalso
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.Neitherstatenoraccusedchallengedtheorderofthiscourt
dated5.12.2013.
37.
Theprosecutionhasexamined27witnessesbeforemeand
theyareasunder:
PW1SambhaKanappa Panchwitnessonspotpanchanama(Exh.28)
Gauda(Exh.27)
PW2MuslimNiyamat Injured.
Shaikh(Exh.32)
PW3MannuKhans/o. Injuredwitness.
MeliKhan(Exh.33)
PW4Mohd.Kalim
IqbalPathan(Exh.36)
Injuredwitness.
PW5Malay
SemerendraBag
(Exh.39)
At the relevant time, he was working as a

Waiter in Rain Bar and Restaurant and on
pointofvisitoftheaccusedtoRainBarand
Restaurant.
PW6BaluLaxman
Muthe(Exh.40)
SecurityGuardforCineActorSohailKhan
PW7FransisDaiman
Fernandes(Exh.43)
Present on the spot after hearing the

commotion.Independentwitness.
PW8Ramasare
RamdevPande
(Exh.47)
Visitedthespotofincidentafterhearingthe
noiseandsawaccusedgettingdownfromthe
rightfrontsideofthecar,hisstatementwas
recordedu/s.164oftheCr.P.C.Independent
witness.
...14/
..14..
Judgment
PW9RizwanAli
Rakhangi(Exh.49)
Attherelevanttime,workedasaManagerin
Rain Bar & Restaurant, in his evidence, the
bills(Exh.50AtoExh.50D)proved.
PW10Sachin
GangaramKadam
(Exh.52)Hostile
Hehadseenonebigcarwentonthebakery
and also over the persons sleeping on the
platformofAmericanCleaners.
PW11Mohd.Abdulla Injured.
Shaikh(Exh.53)
PW12KalpeshSarju
Verma(Exh.69)
Was working at the relevant time in

J.W.Marriot HotelasaParkingAssistantand
onthepointofvisitoftheaccusedtoJ.W.
Mariot.
PW13AminKasam
Shaikh(Exh.70)
Afterhearingthenoise,hewentonthespot
and saw vehicle white in colour went in
American Bakery and shutter of American
Laundrywasbroken.MuslimandAbdulfound
beneaththecar.
PW14SalimMajid
Patel(Exh.72)
Custom Clearing Agent, cleared the vehicle

LandCruiserfromthecustoms.
PW15Alok@Chikki
SharadPandey
(Exh.73)
Knownaccusedanddutyofthecarwaspaid
bychequebyfatherofSalmanKhan.
PW16Gurucharan
InsuranceAgent
AbnashiramMalhotra
(Exh.77)
PW17MarkMarshal
D'Souza(Exh.78)
Worked as a Counter clerk in American

Laundrysince1988,hadseenSalmanKhan
...15/
..15..
Judgment
whousedtopassfromhislaundryandonHill
Road.
PW18Dattatray
Khobrajirao
Bhalshankar(Exh.79)
Assistant Chemical Analyser, did analysis of

bloodsampleofaccusedforalcoholtestand
preparedtheC.A.report(Exh.81)andfound
0.062mg.alcoholinthebloodofaccused.
PW19Rajendra
SadashivKeskar
(Exh.83)
RTOInspector,inspectedthevehicleinvolved
in the incident and submitted a report
(Exh.84).
PW20Dr.Shashikant Medical Officer in J.J. Hospital in the year

JanardanPawar
2002,extractedbloodfromSalmanKhanfor
(Exh.96)
alcoholtest.
PW21SharadBapu
Borade(Exh.115)
He had taken the blood sample to Kalina

Laboratory,Carrier
PW22VijayManikrao BroughtaccusedalongwithpolicestafftoJ.J.
Salunkhe(Exh.118)
Hospitalforexaminationandfortakingblood
sample.
PW23Raghuveer
SinghNagsingh
Bilawar(Exh.119)
Assistant Inspector in RTO examined by the

prosecution to show that accused was not
possessinglicenceonthedayofincident.
PW24Sangita
AnnasahebMahadik
(Exh.126)
Woman Police Naik, examined by the

prosecution to show that Dr. Sanap who
conductedthepostmortemonthedeadbody
ofthedeceasedisresidinginU.S.A.
PW25Kailash
HimmatraoBehere
(Exh.139)
Brother of complainant Ravindra Patil

(deceased examined by prosecution to show
that Ravindra Patil was expired on
03.10.2007.
...16/
..16..
Judgment
ComplainantRavindra Hisevidenceistakenonrecordu/s33ofThe
Patil(Exh.141)
IndianEvidenceAct.
examinedintheCourt
ofAdditionalChief
Metropolitan
MagistrateCourt.
PW26Rajendra
GenbapuKadam
(Exh.142)
Recorded FIR of Ravindra Patil and also

drawn spot panchanama and seized the
articles from the spot and also recorded the
statements of Abdul and Muslim, prepared
mapofthespotofincident.
PW27KisanNarayan InvestigatingOfficer,recordedsupplementary
Shengal(Exh.147)
statement of complainant Ravindra Patil,
arrested the accused under panchanama
(Exh.148),senttheaccusedtoJ.J.Hospitalfor
takingbloodsample,sentthebloodsampleto
C.A.,madeinvestigationregardingtheaddress
of the registered owner of the vehicle,
recordedstatementsofstaffmembersofRain
Bar,visitedJ.W.MarriotHotelandRainBar
Restaurant, collected hotel bills, parking tag
fromKalpeshSarjuVerma,recordedstatement
ofKalpeshVerma,sentlettertoRTOseeking
information regarding the licence of the
accused,statementsofwitnessesMannuKhan,
KalimMohd.Pathan,RamAsarePandeywere
recorded by M.M., 12th Court, Bandra.
Recorded statement of Kamal Khan on
04.10.2002. On 07.10.2002 added Section
304II of the IPC in the crime, returned the
vehicle as per court order, the accused was
surrendered on 07.10.2002 after adding
Section 304II of IPC, arrest panchanama
(Exh.151)wasdrawn,recordedstatementsof
witnesses,collectedtheMedicalCertificatesof
injuredandfiledchargesheeton21.10.2002
before 12th Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Bandra.SubmittedC.A.reports.
...17/
38.
..17..
Judgment
Before recording evidence of PW26 Rajendra Genbapu
KadamandPW27KisanNarayanShengal(InvestigatingOfficers),ld.
SPPMr.Gharatmovedanapplication(Exh.131) u/s.33oftheIndian
EvidenceActfortakingtheevidenceofRavindraHimmatraoPatiland
Dr.Sanaponrecordandalsoadmittingthesameu/s.33oftheIndian
EvidenceAct.TheevidenceofRavindraPatilwasrecordedbeforethe
MetropolitanMagistrateCourt,Bandra,inC.C.No.490/PS/2005prior
tocommittal.ComplainantPatilwasexpiredon3.10.2007.According
told.SPP,theaccusedhadcrossexaminedthecomplainantRavindra
PatilthoroughlyandtheingredientsofSection33arefullyattracted.
Theld.defenceCounselobjectedthesaidapplicationbyfilingthereply
(Exh.136).Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadealsoreliedonthejudgmentof
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of
Gujarat and Another [(2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1]. Ld.
CounselMr.ShivadefairlysubmittedthattheevidenceofMr.Ravindra
Himmatrao Patil can be taken on record and be exhibited and the
admissibilityof theevidenceofRavindraPatilcanbedecidedatthe
timeoffinalargument. Ld.SPPMr.Gharatalsofairlyconsideredthe
saidissue. Hence,inviewoftheratiolaiddowninthecaseof Bipin
ShantilalPanchal,theevidenceofcomplainantRavindraPatilrecorded
inC.C.No.490/PS/2005intheCourtofAdditionalChiefMetropolitan
Magistrate was taken on record and exhibited (Exh. 141). The
admissibilityoftheevidenceofRavindraPatilwouldbedecidedafter
finalhearinginthejudgmentinviewoftheratiolaiddownin Bipin
Shantilal Panchal and State of Gujarat and Another. The
prosecutionaswellasdefencewerepermittedtorefertheevidenceof
Ravindra Patil during the examination of PW26 Rajendra Genbapu
...18/
..18..
Judgment
KadamandalsotheInvestigatingOfficerPW27KisanNarayanShengal
forprovingomissionsandcontradictions,ifany.
39.
Itispertinenttonotethatinthesay(Exh.136)submitted
bythedefencetotheapplication(Exh.131)u/s.33oftheEvidenceAct,
itiscontendedbythedefencethatthedefenceisnotchallengingthe
injuriessufferedbythedeceasedandcauseofdeathmentionedinthe
postmortemreportandnoprejudiceiscausedtothedefence,ifDr.R.L.
Sanapisnotexamined. Soinviewofthecontentionsofthedefence
and also considering the said aspects and as defence admitted the
postmortem report, if Dr. R.L. Sanap is not examined, no prejudice
wouldbecausedtoprosecutionalso. Hence,application(Exh.131)is
partlyallowedon07.03.2015.WhethertheevidenceofRavindraPatil
recordedintheCourtofMetropolitanMagistratebeforecommittalis
relevant,admissibleandcanbereliedunderSection33oftheIndian
EvidenceActwillbediscussedinthelaterpartofjudgment.
40.
Thestatementoftheaccusedisalsorecordedu/s.313of
theCr.P.C. Itisthedefenceoftheaccusedthatatthetimeofthe
allegedincident,hewasnotdrivingthevehicle,butoneAshokSingh
was driving the said vehicle and the tyre was burst in the incident.
Accordingto the accused,AshokSinghwent tothe police station to
statethathewasdrivingthevehicle,butthepolicedidnotrecordhis
statement. Further according to the accused, PW18 Dattatray
KhobrajiraoBhalshankarisnotanexpertandhedidnotexaminethe
bloodsample. Accordingtotheaccused,falsecaseisfiledunderthe
pressureofMedia. Theaccusedalsosubmittedhisfurtherstatement
...19/
..19..
Judgment
vide Exh.171A. According to the accused, there were four persons

presentinthecaratthetimeoftheincident.AshokSinghwasdriving
thevehicle. Theaccusedwassittingnearthedriver'sseatattheleft
side.ThecomplainantRavindraPatilwassittingbehindthedriverand
KamalKhansatonthebackleftseat.Accordingtotheaccused,when
carreachedHillRoadviaManualGonsalvesRoad,suddenlyfrontleft
tyreofthecarwasburst,therebythecarwaspulledtotheleftside.
AshokSinghtriedtoapplybreaksandtriedtocontrolthecar,butby
thenthecarhadclimbedonthestepsofAmericanExpressLaundryand
hittheshutterandstopped. TherewasnofootpathoutsideAmerican
Express Laundry at that time. Further according to the accused, he
triedtogetoutofthecar,butfoundthedoornexttohimwasjammed.
AshokSingh,withgreatdifficulty,gotdownfromthedriver'sside.By
thattime,alotofpeoplehadgatheredaroundandtherewasalotof
confusionandchaos. Astheleftfrontdoorwasjammed,theaccused
crossedovertothedriver'sseatfromthefrontleftseat,wherehehad
been sitting and got out from the driver's door. According to the
accused,hewantedtomovethecar,butthenherealizedthatpeople
weretrappedbeneaththecarandshoutingforhelp.Accordingtothe
accused, they tried to lift the car, but could not do so as it was
dangerous to move the car manually. According to the accused, he
instructedAshokSinghtocallthepoliceforhelpandinformBandra
PoliceStationabouttheincident. TheaccusedsawFrancisFernandis
andhiswife,towhomtheaccusedknew,hadalsocometothespot.
They asked the accused to leave the spot as the crowd was getting
violentandtheyhadalsobeatenRavindraPatilandAshokSingh.The
accused waited there for a few minutes. Francis's wife stopped a
...20/
..20..
Judgment
passingcarandtheymadetheaccusedsitandaskedhimtogohome
forhissafety.Theyalsotoldtheaccusedthattheywouldbetakingthe
injuredtoHolyFamilyhospital.KamalKhanhadalreadygoneaway.
41.
Accordingtotheaccused,hecametoknowlaterthatone
personhaddiedandfourpersonswereinjured.Atabout10.30a.m.on
28.09.2002,theaccusedreceivedamessagethatAshokSinghhadbeen
detainedinBandraPoliceStation.TheaccusedwenttoBandraPolice
Stationtofindoutwhathadhappenedandnoticedthataviolentmob
had gathered outside and they were shouting slogans against him.
Ashok Singh came and told the accused that there was something
wrongasthepolicehadnotrecordedhisstatement.Theaccusedmet
policeofficerwhotoldhimthattherewastremendouspressureonhim
to arrest the accused. The accused told the police that he was not
drivingthecar,butthepolicedidnotlistenandarrestedhiminafalse
case.Accordingtotheaccused,hewenttoBhabhaHospitalandthento
J.J.Hospitalandinbothhospitals,theDoctorsappliedspirittohishand
andtookhisbloodsamples.Accordingtotheaccused,PW18Dattatray
Bhalshankardoesnotknowanythingaboutthechemicalanalysisand
heisnotanexpert. PW12KalpeshVermawasneverpresentandhe
hasbeenplantedbythepoliceastherealvaletYogeshKadamrefused
togivefalsestatementasdesiredbypolice.Accordingtotheaccused,
PW19RajendraKeskarhasneverinspectedthecarandgiventhereport
tosuittheprosecutioncase.Accordingtotheaccused,thepolicehave
prepared the false statements of the witnesses and filed the false
chargesheet.
...21/
42.
..21..
Judgment
IhaveheardMr.Gharat,ld.SPPforState,andMr.Shivade,
ld.Advocatefortheaccused,atlength.Exh.181writtennotesfiledby
SPPandExh.184writtennotesfiledLd.Adv.ShriShivade.Ihavealso
gonethroughtheevidencerecordedbeforememinutely.
43.
Following points arise for my consideration and I have
recordedmyfindingsthereonforthereasonsasfollow:
POINTS
1. Does the prosecution prove that the
evidence of complainant Ravindra Patil
recordedintheCourtoftheAdditionalChief
Metropolitan Magistrate is relevant,
admissible,reliedandbeadmittedu/s.33of
theIndianEvidenceAct?
2. Does the prosecution prove that on
28.09.2002 at about 02.45 a.m. near
American Express Cleaners, St. Andrews
RoadandRamdasNayakMarg(HillRoad),
Bandra(W.),theaccuseddrovethecarLand
Cruiserbearingno.MH01DA32inarash
and negligent manner, under the influence
of alcohol with the knowledge that people
are sleeping in front of American Express
Cleaners and also with knowledge that by
driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and under the influence of liquor,
the accused was likely to cause death and
therebycausedthedeathofNurullaShaikh
and thereby committed an offence
punishableu/s.304IIoftheIPC?
FINDINGS
Yes
Proved.
3. Doesprosecutionprovethatatthesame
date,timeandplace,theaccuseddrovethe
...22/
..22..
vehicleinarashandnegligentmannersoas
toendangerhumanlifeorpersonalsafetyof
others and caused hurt to Kalim Mohd.
Pathan and Munna Khan and thereby
committedanoffencepunishableu/s.337of
theIPC?
date,timeandplace,theaccuseddrovethe
vehicleinarashandnegligentmannerand
causedgrievoushurttoAbdul RaufShaikh
andMuslimShaikhandtherebycommitted
anoffencepunishableu/s.338oftheIPC?
date, time and place, while driving the
vehicleinarashandnegligentmanner,the
accused was not holding a valid driving
licence and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s.3(1) r/w. 181 of the Motor
VehiclesAct?
date, time and place, the accused did not
takereasonablestepstosecurethemedical
aidtothevictimpersonsbyconveyingthem
to nearest Medical Practitioner or hospital
and thereby committed an offence
punishableu/s.134oftheMotorVehiclesAct
punishable u/s.187 of the Motor Vehicles
Act?
accusedfailedtogiveinformationaboutthe
incidenttothepoliceandtherebycommitted
anoffencepunishableu/s.187oftheMotor
VehiclesAct?
Judgment
Proved.
Proved.
Proved.
Proved.
Proved

...23/
..23..
alcohol exceeding30mgper100ml.i.e..
0.062 % mg was found in the blood of
accused and the accused was under the
influenceofalcoholtothatextentsoasto
incapable of exercising proper control over
the vehicle and thereby committed an
offence punishable u/s.185 of the Motor
VehiclesAct?
9.Whatorder?
Judgment
Proved.
Asperfinalorder.
REASONS
44.
Itisvehementlysubmittedbyld.SPPMr.Gharatthatthe
prosecutionhasprovedthechargeslevelledagainsttheaccusedbeyond
reasonable doubt that on the intervening night of 27.09.2002 and
28.09.2002,theaccuseddrovethevehicleLandCruisercarbearingno.
MH01DA32 in a rash and negligent manner and was having
knowledge that the poor bakery workers were sleeping in front of
AmericanExpressCleaners,ranoverthecaroverthemandthevehicle
climbedonthestairsoftheAmericanExpressCleanersandrammed
intotheshutterofthesaidlaundry.Soaccordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,
theaccusedhadtheknowledgethatthesaidpersonsweresleepingat
thesameplacedaily.Inspiteoftheknowledge,theaccuseddrovehis
carinhighspeedanddidnottakerequirecaretherebykillingNurulla
on the spot and injured four persons, out of which two received
grievousinjuries.Furtheraccordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,theaccused
havingbroughtupinthesaidareahasfullknowledgeofthetopography
ofthesaidarea,sincetheaccusedisresidingintheBandratherefrom
last35years.
...24/
45.
..24..
Judgment
According to ld. SPP Mr. Gharat, it is not disputed that
fromhishouse,accusedwenttotheRainBar&Restaurant.FromRain
BarRestaurant,theaccusedthenwenttoJ.W.Mariot.Accordingtold.
SPP,theprosecutionclaimsthattheaccusedwasdrivingthevehicleon
thedayoftheincident,butthedefencecomeswithastandthatthe
vehicle was driven by D.W. 1 Ashok Singh (driver), and not by the
accused.Theld.SPPalsovehementlysubmittedthattheaccusedhad
consumed Bacardi Rum in the Rain Bar Restaurant which gets
corroborated bynoticing the alcohol to the extent of 62m.g.in the
bloodoftheaccused. ShriGharatfurthercontendedthatthereisno
disputethatthebloodofSalmanKhanwasextractedinJ.J.Hospitalby
PW20Dr.Pawar. AccordingtoShriGharat,thebloodextractedfor
alcoholtestwasaspertheprocedureandalsotherewaspropersealing
ofthebloodsampleanditwassentforforwardingtoForensicScience
Laboratory,Kalina.Furtheritiscontendedbyld.SPPMr.Gharatthat
PW19RajendraKeskardidnotfindanymechanicalfaultinthevehicle
andfoundlessairinthefrontwheeltyre. Accordingtold.SPP,the
defenceclaimedthattheaccidentoccurredduetoburstingoffrontleft
tyreanditwasonlyapureaccidentcannotbeestablished.
46.
According to the ld. SPP, there is also evidence of the
injuredwitnessestodemonstratethattheaccusedgotdownfromthe
rightdriversideportionofthecartoestablishthatitwastheaccused
onlywhowasdrivingthevehicleatthetimeofincidentandnoneelse.
Furtheraccordingtold.SPP,thereisnodisputethatthefourinjured
witnessessustainedinjuriesinthesameincident,atthesameplaceand
...25/
..25..
Judgment
atthesametime.Accordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,thedeathofNurulla
occurredonthespotduetothedashbythevehicle.Theld.SPPfurther
contendedthatthespotpanchanamaisalsoprovedandvariousarticles
wererecovered. FurtheritiscontendedthatRavindraPatil,whowas
bodyguardoftheaccused,lodgedthecomplaint(Exh.P1)immediately
aftertheincidentagainsttheaccused.Hisevidencewasalsorecorded
beforetheld.MetropolitanMagistrateandhewasalsocrossexamined
at length. The complainant Ravindra Patil was expired in the year
2007. Hisevidenceu/s.33oftheIndianEvidenceActisrelevantand
canberelied,afterframingchargeunderSection304IIoftheI.P.C.
According to Mr. Gharat, the evidence of Ravindra Patil inspires
confidenceandtrustworthy.
47.
FurtheritiscontendedbyMr.Gharatthatthoughthereare
someomissions,contradictionsappearedintheevidenceofprosecution
witnesses that can be ignored because according to Mr. Gharat, the
injured witnesses were labours and illiteratend. They belong to the
lowerstrata.Furtheritiscontendedthatthoughtherearesomelapses,
errorsnoticedintheinvestigation,thatcanbeignoredandtheCourt
hastoevaluatetheentireevidence.
48.
Further it is contended by ld. SPP Mr. Gharat that the
accusedhadadmitted aboutthe occurrence of the accidentand also

aboutthebakeryworkerssustainedinjuries.However,thespecificand
pointeddefencetakenbytheaccusedu/s.313oftheCodeofCriminal
ProcedureisthatthedefencewitnessAshokSingh(DW1)wasdriving
thevehicleatthetimeoftheincident. AccordingtoMr.Gharat,the
...26/
..26..
Judgment
evidenceofD.W.1AshokSinghonthepointofissueofdrivingthecar
isthesubstantiveevidence.
49.
The ld. SPP Mr. Gharat contended that the cross
examination of all the prosecution witnesses and the probabilities

attemptedtobebroughtonrecordisthematerial,revolvingaroundthe
mainsubstantiveevidenceofthedefencethatAshokSinghwasdriving
thecar. Therefore,oncethemainsubstantiveevidencefails,nothing
remainstobecorroborated.
50.
Furtheraccordingtotheld.SPPMr.Gharatthat,acardinal
principleoflawisthattheprosecutioncaseshallstandonhisownlegs.
Accordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,itistrue,iftheaccusedfacesthetrial
withhismouthshutandhandstied,theguiltoftheaccusedistobe
decided on the basis of the proof of evidence beyond all reasonable
doubt. According to Mr. Gharat, the interpretation of the term
Reasonable Doubt, when it seen from the judgments of the Apex
Court,itshowsthatthemomenttheaccusedfreeshishandsandopens
hismouthbywayofspecificdefence,thesaidevidencejumpsintothe
arena of appreciation, balancing and weighing the evidence and
becomes the decisive factor for the entire case. According to Mr.
Gharat,therefore,whensuchdefencematerialprovestobeillogicaland
unacceptable, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out as
unbelievable.Thereasonisthattheaccusedhashisownstanceshuts
theotherdoorstopeepthroughtoderivetheconclusionsfavourableto
himandtogetthebenefitoftriflinglapsesandinconsistenciesinthe
evidenceoftheprosecutionwitnesses.
...27/
51.
..27..
Judgment
According to ld. SPP Gharat, thus, when the defence is
specificandotherpossibilitiesareruledout,thequestionoffixingthe
liabilityisonlybytwowaysi.e.astowhethertheprosecutionstorythat
theaccusedwasdrivingthevehicleorthespecificdefence,thatAshok
Singh(DW1)wasdrivingthevehicle. Wheneitherofthesestoriesis
accepted,thealternatestorystandsautomaticallydiscardedinthelight
ofthefactthatnootherpossibilityofanyotherpersondrivingthecaris
broughtonrecord.
52.
According to ld. SPP Mr. Gharat, the evidence of DW1
AshokSinghcannotbe acceptedashe isagot up witness. Till the

statementu/s.313of the Cr.P.C.isrecorded,nothingisbroughton
recordtodemonstratethatDW1AshokSinghwasdrivingthevehicle.
Accordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,thedefenceneversuggestedtoanyof
theprosecutionwitnessesexaminedtotheeffectthattheD.W.1Ashok
Singh was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence,
accordingtold.SPP,theevidenceofDW1AshokSinghisliabletobe
discarded from taking into consideration. His conduct is illogical,
unnatural,inconsistentandnotconvincingtotheconsciousofordinary
prudentman.
53.
Accordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,iftheentireprosecution
evidence is looked into, it will demonstrate that the prosecution has

provedthechargesagainsttheaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubt.The
defenceraisedbytheaccusedisliabletobediscardedastheevidenceof
aliar.
...28/
54.
..28..
Judgment
Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadestronglyrefutedthecharges
levelled against the accused. According to Mr. Shivade, the ld.

Advocate,theprosecutionmiserablyfailedtoprovethechargeslevelled
againsttheaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubt. Theld.AdvocateMr.
ShivadevehementlysubmittedthatRavindraPatilisasolesolitaryeye
witnesstotheallegedincident. Hisevidencewasrecordedwhenthe
accused faced the charge u/s.304A of the IPC. After examining 16
witnesses in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, the case was
committedtotheCourtofSessions.InSessionsCourt,retrialwasheld.
ThecomplainantPatilwasexpiredintheyear2007.Itiscontendedby
Mr.ShivadethattheevidenceofRavindraPatilisinadmissibleunder
Section33oftheIndianEvidenceAct.Itisfurthercontendedthatthe
provisionsofSec.33oftheIndianEvidenceActarenotcompliedwithin
this case because accused in first proceeding had no opportunity to
crossexaminePatilinrelationtotheoffenceu/s.304IIastheearlier
trialwasinrelationtotheoffence304Aandothersections.Therefore,
eveniftheSessionsCourttrialisbetweenthesameparties,therecourse
cannot be taken to Sec.33. Further according to Mr. Shivade, ld.
Counsel,thequestionandissueintheMagisterialtrialandtheSessions
Courttrialarenotsubstantiallythesame.
55.
Furtheritiscontendedthattheaccusedwasnotdrivingthe
vehicleasallegedbytheprosecution. DW1AshokSinghwasdriving
thevehicleatthetimeoftheaccident.Furtheritiscontendedthatthe
caroftheaccusedcametoHillRoadviaManualGonsalvesRoaddriven
byDW1AshokSingh. ThesaidroadisparalleltoSt.AndrewsRoad
...29/
..29..
Judgment
anditmeetsHillRoadbeforeSt.AndrewsRoad. Itiscontendedthat
therewasasuddentyreburstofthefrontlefttyreandthesteering
becamehardandbeforedrivertookturn,thecarhadclimbedthestairs
andhittheshutter.
56.
ItiscontendedthatPW19RajendraKeskarexaminedthe
carinvolvedintheaccident,buttheevidenceofPW19Keskardoesnot
inspire confidence. According to Mr. Shivade, ld. Advocate, the
prosecutionhascriticizedthesaidexpertandevendemandedtheaction
againsthim.AccordingtoMr.Shivade,thus,itwasapureaccidentfor
whichnoonecanbeblamed.Furtheritiscontendedbyld.Advocate
Mr.Shivade that if the evidence of complainant Patil is appreciated,
then,onecaninferthatthesaidevidencedoesnotinspireconfidenceas
theevidenceisofthematerialimprovements.Therearealsoomissions
in the evidence of Patil and therefore, the ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade
urgedthatitisextremelyunsafetorelyonsuchevidence.Itisfurther
contendedthattheFIRlodgedisalsoatbelatedstageasthecopyofthe
FIRwasnotdispatchedtotheCourtofMetropolitanMagistratewithin
stipulatedperiodasrequiredbylaw. Itisfurthercontendedbyld.
Advocate Mr. Shivade that the interview given by Patil to MidDay
publishedon30.09.2002whichwasadmittedbyPatilandstatesthat
driverAltafwasatthewheel.Accordingtold.AdvocateMr.Shivade,
AltafwashavinggiddinessatJ.W.MariotHotel,therefore,heinformed
AshoktocometoJ.W.MariotHotelinordertoreachtheaccusedathis
residence. WhilereturningtothehomefromJ.W.MariotHotel,the
allegedaccidenthadoccurred.Accordingtodefence,theincidentisa
pureaccident.
...30/
57.
..30..
Judgment
Further it is contended that the injured witnesses were
underthevehicle,therefore,itwashighlyimprobablethattheywerein
apositiontoseetheaccusedgettingdownfromtherightsideportionof
thecar.Furtheritiscontendedthattheprosecutionhasnotexamined
YogeshVermaandotherwitnessesfromJ.W.Marriot.
58.
Furtheritiscontendedbyld.AdvocateMr.Shivadethat
aftertheaccident,themobgatheredonthespotwhichbecamefurious.
Thepersonsgatheredwerearmedwiththerodsandstones.Therewas
danger to the life of accused, therefore, PW7 Francis has taken the
accusedawayfromthemobandtheaccusedwasmadetositinthecar
stoppedbywifeofPW7inordertoleavetheplace. Soaccordingto
Mr. Shivade, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the
accused ran away from the spot. According to ld. Advocate Mr.
Shivade, story of the prosecution that the accused had consumed
alcoholisafabricatedstory. Theaccusedneverconsumedalcoholin
RainBarRestaurant.Thereisnostrongevidencetothateffectadduced
by the prosecution. It is contended that the accused was taken to
BhabhaHospital.However,nomedicalreportsofBhabhaHospitalare
produced on record. It is contended that IO PW27 Shengal has
attemptedtoimprovethecasebysayingthatAPISuryavanshidisclosed
thatfacilityofbloodextractionwasnotavailableinBhabhaHospital.
FurtheritiscontendedthatDr.ShashikantPawarwhodrawtheblood
fromtheaccuseddidnotfindaccusedundertheinfluenceofalcohol.It
isalsoarguedthattheMedical OfficerDr.Pawardidnotfollowthe
prescribedprocedureforextractingtheblood,therebythereisviolation
ofRule3and4ofBombayProhibition(Medical&Blood)Rules1959,
...31/
..31..
Judgment
providestheseprecautions.Furtheritisalsocontendedthattheblood
samplewassealedbythewardboyandwhatprecautionsweretakenby
thewardboywhilesealingarenotforthcoming.Furtheritiscontended
thatpreservativeSodiumFluoridewasnotaddedinthesampleinorder
topreventfermentation. Ifthepreservativeisnotadded,thenitwill
give rise to the fermentation in the blood which generates alcohol,
therebyitmayaffectendresult.
59.
Ld.CounselMr.Shivadeattackedheavilyontheevidence
ofPW18Bhalshankarwhoanalyzedthebloodsampleoftheaccused.
Itiscontendedthatthebloodsamplesweredespatchednotwithintime
totheLaboratory.Themannerinwhichthebloodsampleswerekeptin
policestationisalsosuspicious. Norefrigerationwasprovidedinthe
policestation.Accordingtold.AdvocateShriShivade,theevidenceof
PW18Bhalshankarishighlyunsatisfactory.PW18cannotsayhowhe
conductedmodifieddiffusionoxidationmethod.4mlbloodwasfound
aftermeasuringbyPW18Bhalshankar,buthowever,6ccbloodwas
sent.AccordingtoMr.Shivade,PW18Bhalshankardidnottakeproper
precautions. According to Mr. Shivade, the evidence of PW18 is
sufferedfromlotofinfirmitiesandtherefore,hisevidencecannotbe
acceptedandsuch,theevidenceofalcoholconsumptionneedstobe
excludedfromconsideration.
60.
Furtheritiscontendedbyld.Advocate Mr.Shivadethat
death of Nurulla was not due to the dash given by the vehicle.
AccordingtoShriShivade,thecranewascalledtoremovethevehicle.
Whenthecranewasapplied,thebumpercameupduetoweightofthe
...32/
..32..
Judgment
car and car fell down. Accordingto Mr.Shivade,Nurulla sustained

injuries due to fall of vehicle. It is contended that there are
circumstancestoshowthatNurullawasaliveaftertheaccident.Soitis
contendedthatthedeathofNurullawasnotcausedduetorashand
negligentdriving.Itisalsovehementlysubmittedbyld.AdvocateMr.
Shivadethat there are lapses,latchesand errors in the investigation
whichisfataltothecaseofprosecution. AccordingtoMr.Shivade,
there is no evidence of finger prints produced on record by the
prosecution though the finger prints of the accused were sent for
comparisonwiththefingerprintsappearingonthesteeringwheel.No
photographs of the vehicle are taken about its position after the
accident. The front left tyre of the vehicle was not sent to the
Laboratoryforexamination. Noparkingtagwasproducedonrecord
whichisavalidpieceofevidencetoshowaboutparkingofthevehicle
inJ.W.MariotHotel. Furthertherearebelatedstatementsrecorded
duringinvestigation. ThesupplementarystatementofRavindraPatil,
bodyguard,wasrecordedon01.10.2002wherehemadeimprovements
to bring the case against the accused u/s.304II of the IPC. The
Investigating Officer did not record the statements of the Security
GuardintheJ.W.MariotaswellasYogeshKadam.YogeshKadamwas
theValetatJ.W.MariotHotelwho,accordingtoprosecution,tookthe
cartoValetPark.ThenameofYogeshKadamwaswrittenonValettag
andtheprosecutionallegedthatthetagwasgiventotheaccusedby
YogeshKadam.Soaccordingtold.AdvocateMr.Shivade,theevidence
of Yogesh Kadam was crucial and by not examining him, adverse
inferencecanbedrawnagainsttheprosecution.Lastlyitissubmitted
thattheaccusedisfalselyimplicatedonthepressureofthemedia.
...33/
61.
..33..
Judgment
Accordingtold.AdvocateMr.Shivade,themedia,mobwas
gatheredinfrontofthepolicestationandifthepolicehadnamedthe
driverAshokasaccused,therewouldhavebeenallegationsfromthe
mobaswellasthemediathatthepoliceareattemptingtosaveSalman
Khan. Hence, according to ld. Advocate, therefore, naming Salman
Khan was the best available option for police and strongest possible
reasonwhytheyimplicatedtheaccused.Soaccordingtodefence,the
evidenceofDW1inspiresconfidenceandhewasexaminedattheright
time after conclusion of prosecution evidence and after recording
statementoftheaccusedu/s.313oftheCr.P.C.Thestagetoexamine
defencewitnesswouldcomeafterrecordingstatementoftheaccused.
Thisisexactlydoneinthepresentcase. Soaccordingtold.Advocate
fortheaccused,theaccusedhasdemonstratedthatitwasDW1who
drove the vehicle. The evidence led by accused is probable and
acceptable.Ld.AdvocateMr.ShivadewouldsubmitthatInvestigating
Officer interrogated Ashok Singh, but did not record his statement
whichitselfdemonstrateshowthepoliceareinterestedinfilingthecase
againstSalmanKhan.Furtheritiscontendedthattheevidenceledby
the prosecution is suffered from infirmities, contradictions and
omissionsanddoesinspireconfidenceatall.TheevidenceofRavindra
PatilintheCourtofMetropolitanMagistratecannotbeadmittedand
read in Sessions Trial. Lapses, errors and lacunas created in the
prosecutionstoryrenderedtheprosecutioncaseinvalidandnotworthy
tobeaccepted.Lastly,itissubmittedthatthereisalwayspresumption
ofinnocenceinfavouroftheaccusedandaccordingtoMr.Shivade,if
totalityofevidenceistakenintoconsideration,itcansafelybesaidthat
...34/
..34..
Judgment
theprosecutionmiserablyfailedtoprovethechargelevelledagainstthe
accusedbeyondreasonabledoubtandtherefore,theaccusedisentitled
foracquittal.
62.
Inthiscase,theadmittedfactsarethat,theaccusedvisited
RainBar&Restaurant. BodyguardRavindraPatilwaswithaccused.
AccusedthenvisitedJ.W.MariotHotel.Theaccidentoccurredandthe
vehicleclimbedthestairsofAmericanExpressLaundryandranoverthe
personsandwentintotheshutterofAmericanExpressLaundry. The
defencealsoadmittedthefollowingdocuments:
(i)
CauseofDeathCertificateofdeceasedNurulla(Exh.19),
(ii)
P.M.reportofdeceasedNurulla(Exh.20[Exh.149]),
(iii)
Inquestpanchanama(Exh.150),
(iv)
InjuryCertificatesofKalimMohammadPathan(Exh.151),
MunnabhaiKhan(Exh.152),AbdulRaufSheikh(Exh.155)andMuslim
Shaikh(Exh.156),
(v)
C.A.Reports(Exh.157Ato157E),
(vi)
Intheincident,NurullaSheikhwasexpiredandfourothers
wereinjured.ThecarLandCruiserwasbelongingtotheaccused.
(vii) ThethirdoccupantofthecarwasoneMr.KamalKhanwho
wassingerandwasoccupyingthebackseatofthecar.
(viii) Theaccusedwasarrestedon28.09.2002.
(ix)
TheaccusedwassentformedicalexaminationtoBhabha
Hospitalandthereafteratabout01.30p.m.wassenttoSirJ.J.Hospital.
(x)
TheaccusedadmittedthathisbloodwasextractedinJ.J.
Hospital.
...35/
63.
..35..
Judgment
The prosecution has tendered in evidence the following
articles:
(i)
TheFiberpieceofvehicle(Art.1),
(ii)
Soilontyre(Art.2),
(iii)
Bloodstainedsoil(Art.3),
(iv)
PiecesofFiberGlass(Art.4),
(v)
Pieceofplasticalongwithlabel(Art.5),
(vi)
Colorscratchedfromshutter(Art.6),
(vii) Soilfromspot(Art.7),
(viii) Glassofheadlight(Art.8),
(ix)
64.
ColourphotosofshuttershowntoPW1bydefence(Art.9).
Inthelightoftheabovesaidadmittedfacts,theevidenceof
theprosecutionisrequiredtobeevaluatedandscrutinizedtoascertain
astowhetherthesameisacceptabletosaythattheprosecutionhas
provedtheguiltoftheaccusedbeyondallreasonabledoubtandalsoto
seeastowhetherthedefenceputforthbytheaccusedcanbeaccepted
onthetouchstoneofthelogicofanordinaryprudentman.Thusthe
Court has to see if the defence stands sustained on the theory of
preponderanceofprobabilityorthedepositionsofthewitnessesdonot
giveroomtothedoubtswhichcanbesaidasreasonabledoubts.
Astopointnos.1to8.
A)
65.
Panchanama:
PW1 Sambha Gauda was running a tea stall near Ram
Temple, S.V. Road, Bandra. One Arjun also used to prepare snacks
...36/
..36..
Judgment
adjoiningtotheteastallofPW1Sambha.PW1SambhaGaudaisthe
witnessonspotpanchanama. On28.09.2002atabout03.00a.m.he
was called by Bandra police near American Laundry on Bandra Hill
Road.Policeinformedhimthatacarwasinvolvedintheaccidentand
maderequesttoactasapanch.PW1andArjunhadgonetothespot.
Onepoliceofficer,notinuniform,waspresentthere. PW1deposed
thatthesaidpersonwasPatil.Patilhadshownpanchasandpolicethe
spot of the incident. One big white car entered in the American
Laundry.Frontportionofthecarwasdamaged.Thebumperofthecar
wasalsotouchedtheshutterofthelaundry.Themotorcarhadclimbed
threestairsandwentinAmericanLaundry. PW1deposedthat45
personswerealsofoundinjuredbeneaththecar.
66.
IthascomeintheevidenceofPW1Gaudathatthepolice
hadmeasuredthespot,collectedthecolourscratchoftheshutter.The
rare side of the wheel of the car was sustained with blood. Police
collectedbloodstainsfromthespot,collectedbrokenglasspiecesand
also the number plate. Police also packed the said articles. The
panchanama was read over to PW1 in Hindi and thereafter PW1
signedthepanchanamaaswellasArjunsignedthepanchanama.
67.
PW1Gaudaidentifiedthespotpanchanama(Exh.28)and
alsoidentifiedthearticles1to8whicharedescribedabove.Thelabels
affixedontheenvelopsbearthesignaturesofPW1Gauda.
68.
PW1isalsocrossexaminedatlengthbytheld.Advocate
fortheaccused.PW1admittedthathedoesnotpossessanylicenceto
...37/
..37..
Judgment
runtheteastall.MunicipalityusedtoseizethestallandarticlesofPW
1 and PW1 used to pay fine to B.M.C. PW1 stated in cross
examinationthatasthepoliceusedtocallhim,hehadgoneasperthe
sayofpolice.PW1admittedthatinordertoavoidconflictwithpolice,
heusedtogoonwiththepolice.
69.
Theld.Advocate Mr.Shivade vehementlysubmittedthat
thePW1Gaudaistheregularpanchavailableforpoliceandtherefore,
noreliancecanbeplacedonhisevidence. Theld.SPPreliedonthe
reportedjudgmentinthecaseofDeepakGhanashyamNaikv/s.State
ofMaharashtra, 1989,CRI.L.J. 1181 Inthe saidcitedcase,Arun
Madhav Zankar (PW2) was called as a panch witness for taking
personal search of the appellant. The said panch witness has been
attacked by the ld. Advocate for the accused calling him as a
professional panch. Panch witness admitted that he had acted as a
panchonceortwice. ItisobservedbytheirLordshipsoftheHon'ble
High Court are not able to persuade themselves to agree with the
submissionsofMr.Sanghanithatheisaprofessionalpanchbecausehe
isnotapersondoingnothingandunderthepoliceobligationtoactasa
panch witness. In fact, the panch witness has fruits business. No
questionwasputtohimincrossexaminationtoelicitinformationabout
thecircumstancesinwhichhehappenedtoactasapanchwitnessonce
ortwiceearlier. Intheabsenceofanyquestionputtohimincross
examinationtoseeksuchanexplanation,itisnotpossibletoguessin
what circumstances he became a panch witness in one or two trial
occasions.Itisobservedthatthepanchwitnessisnotanidlepersonor
manwithoutmeans. He isin factabusinessman andtherewasno
...38/
..38..
Judgment
necessity for him to comply with the request of police either for
considerationorotherwiseortobeinagoodbooksofthepolice.
70.
Inourcaseinhand,thepanchwitnessisahawkerandhe
wasdoingthebusinessofteaandhasnonecessitytocomplywiththe
requestofthepoliceeitherforconsiderationorotherwisetobeina
goodbooksofpolice,thenevenhehasactedasapanchonsomeearlier
occasions,hisevidencecannotbedoubted.
71.
In crossexamination PW1 Gauda also admitted that
panchanamawasnotdrawninthepolicestation.Hehadnotseenthe
spot of incident earlier. There is a bakery existed near American
Laundry.AmericanLaundryandbakeryareadjacenttoeachother.He
alsostatedthatthespotofincidentwaslocatedonthesteps.Hesigned
on the labels on the spot of incident. He does not know timing of
panchanama. Panchanama was written down by standing on the
footpathonHillRoad. Thelefttyreofthecarwasfoundpunctured.
Thecarwasfoundinasamepositionpriortopanchanamaandafterthe
panchanamawhenheleftthespotoftheincident. PW1alsostated
thathehadnotseenwhetherthecarwasremovedwiththehelpof
crane in order to remove the injured. He cannot say whether the
injuredwereremovedfromthespotpriortodrawingpanchanamaor
after conclusion of the panchanama. The injured were found in
entangledbelowtheleftwheelofthecar.Hestatedthatpeoplewere
tryingtoleavethecarfromthespot.PW1statedthatitdidnothappen
thatthepoliceenteredinthecarbyopeningthedoorofthecarand
madeinspectionandpolicetookRCBook,certifiedcopyofNewIndia
...39/
..39..
Judgment
Insurance,keysintheirpossession.PW1contradictedportionmarked
Ainthepanchanama.
72.
PW1Gaudaalsoadmittedthatwhateverarticlesfoundon
the spot were taken in the possession by police and packed in his
presence.Thepolicealsoremovedthecarwiththeaidofcraneinhis
presence.PW1alsostatedthathehadnotseenwhetherbumperofthe
carwasremovedwhenthecranewastouchedtothatportionatthe
timeofremovingthecar.Policealsohadtakenthemeasurementofthe
carinhispresence. WhenPW1signedonthepanchanama,carwas
notpresentneartheshutter.Policealsohadtakenthemarkingofthe
carandalsohadtakenthemeasurementofthedistancefromtheplace
wherethecarwasfoundtilltheroadandalsothedistancefromthecar
tilltheshutteroftheAmericanLaundry. PW1Gaudadeniedinthe
crossexaminationthatnopanchanamawasdrawninhispresenceand
hesignedit,inthepolicestation.PW1SambhaGaudasawtheblood
onlyonthetyreandnotontheotherplace.
73.
IftheevidenceofPW1SambhaGaudaislookedinto,Ifind
thathisevidenceinspiresconfidence.Thespotpanchanamawasdrawn
inhispresenceandthereisnoreasonforhimtodeposeinfavourofthe
prosecution.
B)
Whether the evidence of Ravindra Himmatrao Patil
recorded before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bandra,inC.C.No.490/PS/2005isrelevant,admissible u/s.33of
theIndianEvidenceActandcanbereliedintheproceedingagainst
...40/
..40..
Judgment
theaccused:
74.
This is a crucial aspect of the case as to whether the
evidence of Ravindra Himmatrao Patil recorded in the Court of ld.

AdditionalMetropolitanMagistrateisrelevant,admissible,andberelied
inthiscase.Ihavealsodiscussedtheeventsafterfilingchargesheetin
the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bandra, and thereafter what had
happenedinparanos.24to31ofthejudgment.Theld.SPPMr.Gharat
filedanapplication(Exh.131)fortakingtheevidenceofRavindraH.
PatilandDr.R.L.Sanaponrecord.RavindraPatilwasexpiredinthe
year2007. On07.03.2015Ihavedecidedthesaidapplicationandin
viewoftheratiolaiddowninthecaseofBipinShantilalPanchalVs.
StateofGujaratandAnother[(2001)3SupremeCourtCases1]the
evidence of Ravindra Patil recorded in the Court of ld. Metropolitan
MagistrateistakenonrecordinthecaseinhandanditisatExh.141.
Dr.R.L.SanapperformedpostmortemonthedeadbodyofNurulla.Dr.
Sanap is reported to be residing in U.S.A. The defence specifically
mentionedinthesaythatthedefenceisnotchallengingtheinjuries
caused by the deceased and cause of death mentioned in the
postmortemreportandnoprejudiceiscausedtothedefenceifDr.R.L.
Sanapisnotexamined. SotheevidenceofRavindraPatilistakenon
recordinthepresentcase.Theprosecutionaswellastheaccusedwere
granted liberty to refer the said evidence during the examination of
RajendraKadam(PW26)whorecordedthecomplaintofRavindraPatil
andalsoInvestigatingOfficerShengal(PW27).Furthertherelevancy
andadmissibilityoftheevidenceofRavindraPatiltakenonrecordisto
bedecidednow.
...41/
75.
..41..
Judgment
Itispertinenttonotethattheprosecutionhasexamined
PW25 Kailash Behre, brother of Ravindra Patil (deceased/

complainant).AccordingtoPW25,RavindraPatilwasthebodyguard
oftheaccusedintheyear2002.Aftertheincident,RavindraPatilwas
transferred to LA Division, Tardeo. PW25 Kailash deposed that
RavindraPatilwasnotkeepingwellandhecouldnotrecoverfromthe
illnessandwasexpiredon03.10.2007.DeathCertificateisatExh.140.
ThedefencealsodidnotseriouslydisputeaboutthedeathofRavindra
Patil.
76.
The ld. SPP Mr. Gharat vehemently submitted that the
evidenceofRavindraPatiltakenonrecordisrelevantandbeadmitted
u/s.33oftheIndianEvidenceAct.ItisnecessarytoreproduceSection
33oftheIndianEvidenceActwhichreadsasunder:
33. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in
subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein
stated:
Evidencegivenbyawitnessinajudicialproceedingor
before any person authorised by law to take it, is
relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent
judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same
judicialproceeding,thetruthofthefactswhichitstates,
when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is
incapableofgivingevidence,oriskeptoutofthewayby
theadverseparty,orifhispresencecannotbeobtained
withoutanamountofdelayorexpensewhich,underthe
...42/
..42..
Judgment
circumstances of the case, the Court considers

unreasonable:
Provided
thattheproceedingswasbetweenthesameparties
ortheirrepresentativesininterest;
thattheadversepartyinthefirstproceedinghad
therightandopportunitytocrossexamine;
thatthequestionsinissueweresubstantiallythe
sameinthefirstasinthesecondproceeding.
ExplanationAcriminaltrialorinquiryshallbe
deemedtobeaproceedingbetweentheprosecutorand
theaccusedwithinthemeaningofthissection.
77.
Itisvehementlysubmittedbyld.SPPMr.Gharatthatafter
recordingoftheevidenceofwitnesses,thecasewascommittedtothe
CourtofSessionsastheld.MetropolitanMagistratewasoftheopinion
thatchargeu/s.304IIwouldbeattracted. MyLd.Predecessoragain
framed the charges including charge u/s.304II of the IPC after
committal. As discussed in above paras and in view of the various
provisions in Cr.P.C. and after hearing the ld. defence Counsel Mr.
Shivade and then APP Mr. Kenjalkar, it was decided to take the
evidenceafresh. Thesummonswasissuedtothewitnessesincluding
complainant Ravindra Patil, but it was informed to the Court that
RavindraPatilwasexpiredduetoTuberculosison03.10.2007.
78.
Therefore,theld.SPPundersuchcircumstances,contended
thatSec.33oftheIndianEvidenceActneedstobeinvoked.According
...43/
..43..
Judgment
tohim,Sec.33oftheIndianEvidenceActprovidesthattheevidence
givenbyawitnessinajudicialproceedingisrelevantforthepurposeof
provinginalaterstageofsamejudicialproceeding,thetruthofthe
facts which is states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found.
Accordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,theevidenceofRavindraPatilasPW1
inthecaseNo.490/PS/2005wascompletedbeforetheld.Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the facts of the case and full
opportunity of crossexamination was given to the accused, which
satisfiedallthethreeconditionsoftheprovisotoSec.33. Itisfurther
contendedbytheld.SPPthattheaccusedhasgotfullopportunityto
rebuttheentireevidenceofRavindraPatil.Accordingtold.SPPMr.
Gharat,factsaretoberebutted,provedordisprovedonthetouchstone
ofthecrossexamination. Accordingtold.SPP,truthofthefactswas
testedincrossexaminationofthedefence.Theaccusedalsoconfronted
theeveryquestionavailablewiththeaccused.
79.
Accordingtold.SPP,theevidenceofRavindraPatilwould
be the same even after framing the charge u/s.304II of the IPC.
Accordingtold.SPP,.thereareallegationsagainsttheaccusedthaton
thefatefuldayoftheincident,theaccuseddrovethecarinarashand
negligent manner under the influence of liquor and was having
knowledge that the labourers were sleeping in front of American
Laundry.Theaccusedisresidingnearthespotofincidentandbrought
up in Mumbai. The FIR was lodged by Ravindra Patil. His
examinationinchief was also recorded in view of FIR filed by him.
Accordingtold.SPP,factsofthecasewouldbethesamewhencharge
u/s.304AoftheIPCwasframedearlierandaftercommittal,charge
...44/
..44..
Judgment
u/s.304II of the IPC is framed. According to ld. SPP, law imposes

certaindutiesonthepersonnottodrivethecarundertheinfluenceof
liquorandincallousandnegligentmanner.Moreover,thepersonalso
knowsthatwithoutdrivinglicence,oneshouldnotdrivethevehicle.So
whatelsewouldbetheknowledge.
80.
The defence of the accused is that the accused was not
drivingthevehicle,DW1AshokSinghwasdrivingthevehicle.Charge
u/sSec.304IIoftheIPCisframedinthiscasethattheaccuseddrove
thecarinrashandnegligentmannerundertheinfluenceofalcohol
with the knowledge that people are sleeping in front of American
expressCleanersandtheaccusedwashavingknowledgethatbydriving
thevehicleinrashandnegligentmannerunderinfluenceofliquorhe
waslikelytocausedeathandcauseddeathofNurullaShaikh. Inthe
evidence,RavindraPatilstatedallthefactsoftheincident.Soevenif
chargeu/s.304IIofIPCisframedinthepresentcase,thefactswould
bethesame. ThedefencealsocrossexaminedRavindraPatilinthe
Metropolitan Magistrate Court exhaustively and substantively on the
various dates. The omissions were also brought on record by the
defence.SuggestionwasalsogiventocomplainantRavindraPatilthat
theaccusedwasnotdrivingthevehicleindrunkenstate. Suggestion
wasalsogiventothecomplainantthattheaccusedwasnotdrivingthe
carinthebeginningofincidentnight.Suggestionwasalsogiventothe
complainant that on 01.10.2002 his supplementary statement was
recordedinordertoinvolvetheaccusedinthecase.
...45/
81.
..45..
Judgment
So fullest opportunity is given to the accused to cross
examineRavindraPatilintheAdditionalChiefMetropolitanMagistrate
Courtandthesaidopportunitywasavailedbytheaccused.Soitcannot
besaidthattheaccusedwasnothavingopportunitytocrossexamine
RavindraPatil.
82.
Nowquestionremainsaboutknowledge.Asstatedbyme
above,thelawimposescertaindutiesonanypersonthatheshouldnot
drivethevehicleundertheinfluenceofliquorandalsowithoutlicence.
Everypersonishavingthesameknowledge. Thesearetheimportant
ingredientsofSec.304IIoftheI.P.C.Soeverypersonhasknowledge
abouttheabovethingsandtheaccusedexhaustivelycrossexaminedthe
complainantbyputtingsuggestionthattheaccusedwasnotdrivingthe
vehicleandhewasnotinadrunkenstateofhealth.Soinmyopinion,
itwillbesafetoadmittheevidenceofRavindraPatilincaseinhand
u/s.33oftheIndianEvidenceAct.TheingredientsofSec.33arefully
attractedinourcasepertainingtotheevidenceofRavindraPatil.
83.
Theld.SPPalsoreliedonthe judgmentof 1881Indian
LawReporter,page42, inthematterofpetitionof RochaMohato

(Appellant) The Empress v. Rochia Mohato. It is necessary to
reproducesomeportionofthesaidcaseandthesameisasfollows:
Thisisanappealfromaconvictionbyajuryinrespect
ofwhichwecanonlyinterfereiftherehasbeensome
error of lawor misdirection bythe Judge. Now it is
allegedthatweoughttointerfereontwogrounds:first,
thatevidencehasbeenwronglyplacedbeforethejury;
...46/
..46..
Judgment
andsecondly,thatincertainparticularstherehasbeena
misdirection,orratherawantofdirectionbytheJudge.
Withrespecttothefirstgroundthatimproperevidence
hasbeenplacedbeforethejury,thecomplaintis,that
the depositions of two witnesses who were examined
beforetheMagistratewereimproperlyallowedbythe
Judgetobeputinbytheprosecutionandusedinthe
SessionsCourtunderthefollowingcircumstances:
One of these witnesses was the person whom the
defendantandhispartywereaccusedofassaulting,and
who has since died. Now, before the Magistrate the
only complaintwasachargeofgrievoushurt. Butin
consequenceofthedeathofthepersonwhowashurt
viz., Khedroo, other charges were added before the
SessionsJudge,viz,achargeofmurderandachargeof
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In
consequence of these additional charges, it is argued
that,underS.33oftheEvidenceAct,thequestionsin
issue before the Sessions Court, and before the
Magistrate,werenotsubstantiallythesameinthetwo
proceedings.Asamatteroffact,theprisonerhasonly
beenconvictedofgrievoushurt;andthereforetheissue
thatwasbeforetheMagistratewasonlyissuethathas
beendecidedagainsttheaccusedbythejury.Itappears
tous,that,bythequestionsinissue,itisnotintended
that, in a case where the prisoner injured dies
subsequentlytotheenquirybeforethe Magistrate,his
...47/
..47..
Judgment
evidence is not to be used before the Sessions Court,

becauseinconsequenceofhisdeathotherchargesare
framedagainsttheaccused.Weareofopinionthatthe
evidence of the deceased in this case was admissible
unders.33,andevenifitwerenotadmissibleunders.
33,thatitwouldbeadmissibleunderthefirstclauseof
s. 32of the Evidence Act. The question whether the
proviso to s. 33 is applicable, that is, whether the
questionsatissuearesubstantiallythesame,depends
uponwhetherthesameevidenceisapplicable,although
differentconsequencesmayfollowfromthesameact.
Now, here the act was the strokes of a sword which,
though it did not immediatelycause the death of the
deceasedperson,yetconducedtobringaboutthatresult
subsequently. In consequence of the person having
died,the gravityof the offence becamepresumptively
increased;buttheevidencetoprovetheactwithwhich
theaccusedwaschargedremainedpreciselythesame.
We therefore think that this evidence was properly
admittedunders.33.
84.
Theld.SPPalsoreliedonthecaseofTheStateV/s.Suraj
Bali&Ors.[1982CRI.L.J.1223(AllahabadHighCourt,Lucknow
Bench)]whereinitisheldasunder:
EvidenceAct(1872),Section33Depositionofadead
witnessAdmissibilityDirectionbyAppellantCourtfor
commitmentunderSection423(1)(b)CriminalP.C.
...48/
..48..
Judgment
aftersettingasideconvictionFormerproceedingsin
trial Court not rendered illegal commitment to
SessionsDeathofawitnessHisdepositioninfirst
trialAdmissibleinSessionsCourt.
Where an appellant Court, after setting aside
conviction, directs the trial Magistrate under Section
423(1) (b), Criminal P. C. to commit the accused to
SessionsCourt,theformerproceedingsinthetrialCourt
arenotrenderedwithoutjurisdictionandillegalanda
deposition of a witness in those proceedings can be
broughtonrecordintheSessionsCourtundersection
33oftheEvidenceActifthewitnessisdead.
85.
In this case, the opposite parties Suraj Bali, Misri Lal,
Ramanand,Sadgu,ShankarandMotilalwereprosecutedunderSections
147, 342, 324 / 149, 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code before the
JudicialMagistrate,Lucknow.TheMagistraterecordedthestatements
ofthevariouswitnessesincludingthatofoneRamchandra(PW2).The
ld.Magistrateconvictedandsentencedtheoppositepartiestoundergo
varioustermsoftheimprisonment.Theoppositepartiesappealedand
the appellate court was of the view that the evidence indicated the
alleged commission of an offence u/s.387 of the Indian Penal Code
whichwasexclusivelytriablebytheCourtofSessions.Theconviction
wassetasideandthematterwasremandedtotheld.Magistratewitha
directionthatheshouldcommitthecasetotheCourtofSessionsona
proper charge. The case was committed u/s.387 of the IPC. It
...49/
..49..
Judgment
transpired that PW2 Ramchandra (who had been examined by the

Magistrate)diedbefore,hecouldbeexaminedatthetrialbeforethe
Assistant Sessions Judge. The Public Prosecutor presented an
applicationtoexaminefatherofRamchandratoprovethelatterdeath
toenabletheprosecutiontoapplyforthetransferenceofthedeposition
ofRamchandrafromtherecordoftheCourtoftheMagistrateontothe
recordoftheSessionsTrialasevidenceu/s.33oftheEvidenceAct.The
saidapplicationwasrejected.Itisheldinpara7bytheHon'bleHigh
Courtasunder:
7. The learnedAssistantSessionsJudgewastomy
mindnotcorrectwhenherejectedtheapplication.Itis,
therefore,directedthattheStateshallhavethelibertyto
leadevidencetoprovethatRamChandraisdeadandto
bringhisearlierdepositionontherecordunderSection
33EvidenceAct.Astowhatvalueshouldattachtothat
statementisforthetrialCourttodecide,andnotforthis
Court.
86.
Theld.SPPalsoreliedonthecaseofRamvilasandothers
v/s.StateofMadhyaPradesh(1985CRI.L.J.1773).
(A)EvidenceAct(1of1872),S.33Applicability
Essentialrequirements.
Foradmissibilityoftherecordedevidenceofapersonin
accordancewithS.33,oneoftheessentialrequirements
is that the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is
incapableofgivingevidenceoriskeptoutofthewayby
the adverse party, or his presence cannot be obtained
...50/
..50..
Judgment
withoutanamountofdelayorexpense,whichunderthe
circumstances of the case, the Court considers
unreasonable. Theallegationhastobelegallyproved
likeanyotherfactandtheburdenorproofrestsupon
thepartywhichinvokesthesection.(Para9)
WhereS.33wassoughttobeinvokedinrespectofa
prosecutionwitnessonthegroundofherdeathitwas
heldthatitwasfortheprosecutiontoprovethealleged
deathofthatwitnessaccordingtolawanditcannotbe
said that her death was impliedly admitted by not
challenging the report regarding her death. In a
criminalcase,itisnotopentotheaccusedtowaiveits
proof.Consentforwantofobjectiononthepartofthe
accused or his counsel to the deposition of a witness
beingbroughtonrecordunderthesaidsectioncannot
makeitadmissible,ifitisnototherwiseso.Thus,when
thedeathwasnotprovedbytheprosecution,itwasnot
entitledtoresorttoS.33(para9)
AlsoS.33contemplates(i)asubsequentjudicial
proceedinginwhichthatpersonhastobeexaminedasa
witnessor(ii)asubsequentstageatwhichthatperson
has to be examined as a witness in the same judicial
proceedingasthecasemaybe.(para10)
87.
Inthesaidcase,theappellantswerechargedwiththe
alleged offences u/s.148, 302, 149, 307/149 and 395/397 of the

Indian Penal Code. After holding a trial, the appellants were
...51/
..51..
Judgment
convicted.TheconvictionisbasedonthesolitarytestimonyofMrs.
Gangadevi(PW27)andfewpiecesofcircumstantialevidence.Her
evidence was recorded on 07.01.1981 on which date she was
examined in chief, crossexamined and discharged. Her dying
declarationwasrecordedon25.12.1981bytheExecutiveMagistrate
Mr. Pandey (DW2). That statement had not been filed by the
prosecution nor had a copy thereof delivered to any of the
appellants. The application was filed on 02.02.1981 by the
appellants for recalling of PW7 Gangadevi. The said application
wasrejectedbytheSessionsCourt,butinRevisiontheHon'bleHigh
Court allowed the application. The Sessions Court directed
Gangadevi(PW7)toresummonforfurthercrossexaminationand
postedthecaseto05.03.1981.Thematterwasadjournedfromtime
totime. Whenthematterwasfixedon23.04.1981,thesummons
reportofGangadevihadbeenwrittentotheeffectthatshehaddied
on 08.04.1981. In the above mentioned circumstances, it is
contendedonbehalfoftheappellantsthatthetestimonyofPW7
cannotbereadinevidenceu/s.33oftheEvidenceAct.
Inthesaidcase,itisheldasunder:
10. But, in our opinion, in the circumstances of the
presentcase,recoursetothesaidsectionisnotnecessaryto
giverelevancytothetestimonyofMst.Gangadevi((P.W.7)
asweshallpresentlyshow. NodecisionoftheSupreme
CourtorthisCourtonthispointhasbeenbroughttoour
notice. The rule contained in the section is an
administrativeexpedientfordoingjusticebetweenlitigants
in aparticularsituation. Thecourtrequiresalitigantto
...52/
..52..
Judgment
furnish evidence of the primary grade if it is within his

powertodoso. Solong,therefore,astheproponentcan
reasonably be required to cause a witness to repeat his
evidence regarding admissible facts given on a former
occasion the Court insists that the witness himself be
produce.Inotherwords,primaryevidenceisinsistedupon
untilasatisfactorynecessityforofferingsecondaryevidence
ismadeout.Whentheproponentsnecessityforproducing
evidence of secondary grade is established, the right to
submititisrecognisedbytheCourtsolongastheoriginal
evidence is attainable, evidence which is merely
substitutionary in its nature cannot be received. The
section states the circumstances and conditions under
whichsecondaryevidenceoforaltestimonymaybegiven.
Under those circumstances and conditions, the section
makesrelevanttheevidencealreadygivenbyaperson(i)
in a prior judicial proceeding or before any person
authorisedbylawtotakeitor(ii)atanearlierstageofthe
samejudicialproceeding.Thatistosay,ifapartywantsto
givetheevidenceofthesameperson(i)inasubsequent
judicial proceeding or (ii) at a subsequent stage of the
proceeding as the case may be, his evidence already
recorded earlier can be considered and he need not be
examinedinthesubsequentjudicialproceedingoratthe
subsequent stage of the same judicial proceeding as the
casemaybeifthecircumstancesandconditionsmentioned
inthesectionarefulfilled.Thesectioncontemplates(i)a
...53/
..53..
Judgment
subsequentjudicialproceedinginwhichthatpersonhasto
beexaminedasawitnessor(ii)subsequentstageatwhich
thatpersonhastobeexaminedasawitnessinthesame
judicialproceedingasthecasemaybe.Inthepresentcase,
there is no question of a subsequent judicial proceeding.
Here,thequestioniswhether,inthesessionstrial,there
wasanystageatwhichitwasnecessaryfortheprosecution
to give evidence of Mst. Gangadevi (P.W.7) again. Her
evidencehadalreadybeenrecordedatthetrialon711981
underS.231oftheCr.P.C.1973readwithS.137ofthe
EvidenceActandtherewasnosubsequentstageforgiving
herevidence.Astherewasnosubsequentstageforgiving
herevidence,therewasnooccasionforinvokingS.33of
the Evidence Act for giving relevancy to her evidence
recordedon711981. Therelevancywasneverlostbyit
asitwastheevidenceofprimarygradegivenatthetrial.
S.33abidstatesthecircumstancesunderwhichsecondary
evidenceoforaltestimonymaybegiven.Whenevidenceof
primarygradehasbeenadduced,thereisnooccasionto
invokeorresorttothatsection.
11.
Thefact,however,remainsthattheappellantswere
deprivedoftheopportunitytofurthercrossexamineMst.
Gangadevi(P.W.7)inthelightofherearlierstatementdt.
25121979(Ex.D5)recordedbytheExecutiveMagistrate
SanskarPande(D.W.2). Thatopportunitywasdirectedto
be given to them vide order dated 2021981 in the
...54/
..54..
Judgment
criminal revision referred to in para No. 7 above. That

statement(Ex.D5)couldbemadeuseofbytheappellants
onlyforcontradictingherunderS.145oftheEvidenceAct.
It has, therefore, to be examined as to how far the
appellants are adversely affected or prejudiced thereby.
Reference to her testimony becomes necessary at this
stage.
88.
Ihavegonethroughthecitedcaseandwithduerespect,I
findthatthefactsinthecaseof Ramvilasandothersv/s.Stateof
Maharashtra(citedsupra)arenotapplicabletothefactsofthecasein
hand.Inourcase,theevidencewasrecordedafresh,afterframingthe
chargeu/s.304IIof the IPC after committal. Complainant Ravindra
Patilisexpired. Hehasstatedthefactsinhisevidencebeforetheld.
MetropolitanMagistrateastohowtheaccidenttookplace.Thosefacts
wouldbethesameforthechargeu/s.304IIoftheIPC.Inviewofthe
ingredientsofSection33oftheIndianEvidenceActandinviewofthe
judgmentincaseof 1881IndianLawReporter and TheStateV/s.
Suraj Bali & Ors. (cited supra), the evidence of Ravindra Patil is
relevant, and admitted and is taken on record u/s.33 of the Indian
EvidenceActinthecaseinhand.Astowhatvalueshouldattachtothe
saidevidenceistobediscussedlateron.
89.
Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadevehementlyarguedthatthe
essentialconditionsofSec.33arenotfulfilledbytheprosecution.Itis
contendedthatthechargeandnatureoftheoffenceinboththetrials
aredifferent. TheingredientsofSec.304Aand304IIofthe Indian
...55/
..55..
Judgment
Penal Code are dramatically opposite in respect of mens rea. The

offenceu/s.304ArequiresanactofomissionwhileSec.304IIrequires
anactofcommission.Itisalsoarguedbyld.AdvocateMr.Shivadethat
theaccuseddidnotgetproperopportunityforcrossexaminationwith
referencetothechargeorissues.
90.
Ld.AdvocateMr.Shivadevehementlysubmittedthatinthe
earliertrialtheaccusedwasfacingthelightercharge.Sec.304Aofthe
IPCpunishablewithtwoyearsorfine. Accordingtold.AdvocateMr.
Shivade, the crossexamination is always permitted to the extend of
charge and accused is not supposed to anticipate all the potential
charges and crossexamined accordingly. The earlier evidence was
recordedintheabsenceoftheaccused.AccordingtoMr.Shivade,the
accused is now facing a grave charge of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, punishment provided upto 10 years or fine.
RavindraPatilhasnotbeencrossexaminedinthiscase.Itiscontended
that the evidence of Patil was tendered at the fag end. Further
according to Mr. Shivade, issues involved in both the cases are not
substantiallythesame.
91.
Theld.Advocatefurthercontendedthattheprovisionsof
Section33ofIndianEvidenceActarenotcompliedwithinthiscase,
becausetheaccusedinthefirstproceedinghadnorightoropportunity
tocrossexaminePatilinrelationtooffenceofSection304,PartIIasthe
earlier trial was only for Section 304A and other lesser charges.
Therefore,eveniftheSessionsCourttrialisbetweenthesameparties
recoursecannotbetakentoSection33.
...56/
92.
..56..
Judgment
Furtheritisarguedbyld.AdvocateMr.Shivadethatthe
questionandissueintheMagisterialtrialandtheSessionsCourttrial
are not substantially the same because the question of intention or
knowledge of the accused in relation to the act done by him was
completelyirrelevantinthetrialu/s.304Awhiletheyareessentialin
Sec.304II of the IPC. According to Mr. Shivade, there is always
substantial difference between the actcausingthe deathand the act
causingtheinjury. AccordingtoMr.Shivade,inthepresentcase,the
caseoftheaccusedisthathewasnotdriving.FurtheraccordingtoMr.
ShivadeitisalsonecessarytonotetheprovisionsofSection304Iwhich
requiredthattheactcausingdeathisdonewiththeintentionofcausing
deathorcausingsuchbodilyinjuriesasislikelytocausedeath.PartII
ofSec.304alsocontemplatesanactdonewhichresultsindeathofthe
personwiththeknowledgethatsuchactislikelytocausedeath,but
withoutanyintentiontocausedeathorsuchbodilyinjuryislikelyto
cause death. According to Mr. Shivade, therefore, all this is not
requiredtoprove,ifthepersonistriedu/s.304AoftheIPCwhetherhe
hadintentionornot,whetherhehadanyknowledgeornot. Hence,
accordingtoMr.Shivade,offencesu/s.304Aand304IIaredifferent
andarenotsubstantiallythesame. Section304Aisanindependent
charge,itisnotlesseroffencethanSection304IIoftheIPC. Hence,
accordingtoMr.Shivade,theevidenceofPatilcannotbeheldrelevant
andreadinSessionsCourttrial. ItiscontendedthattheMagisterial
trialand,aftercommittal,aSessionstrialisnotalaterstageofthesame
judicial proceeding and therefore, Sec.33 of Evidence Act cannot be
invoked. According to Mr. Shivade, the accused is deprived of
substantialrighttocrossexaminePatil.
...57/
93.
..57..
Judgment
Iamafraidtoacceptthecontentionsofld.AdvocateMr.
Shivade. As discussed above by me, the facts are to be rebutted in

crossexamination.ThecomplainantPatilhasnarratedinhisevidence
aboutthefactsastohowtheaccidenttookplace.Thereareallegations
against the accused about driving the vehicle in rash and negligent
mannerunderintoxication. Theaccusedexhaustivelycrossexamined
Patil before the ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court.
UnderSection304II,knowledgeplaystheimportantrole.Asdiscussed
above,everyprudentmanishavingknowledgethatheshouldnotdrive
thevehicleunderthe influenceofalcoholorwithouthavinglicence.
Every prudent man is having knowledge about the consequences of
breachoftheaboveduty.Theaccusedisalsoresidentofsamevicinity
whereinthespotofincidentislocated.Theaccusedusedtopassfrom
nearbythespotofincident.Sotheaccusedwashavingknowledgethat
people used to sleep in front of American Express Cleaners. The
Hon'ble Apex Court also held in the land mark judgment of Alister
AnthonyPareiraV/s.StateofMaharashtrathatinMumbai,peopledo
sleeponthepavements.
94.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade relied on the case of Willie
(William)SlaneyV/s.StateofMadhyaPradesh(AIR1956SC116).
12. Inouropinion,thekeytotheproblemliesinthe
wordsunderlined.Exceptwherethereissomethingso
vitalastocutattherootofjurisdictionorsoabhorrent
to what one might term natural justice, the matter
...58/
..58..
Judgment
resolves itself to a question of prejudice. Some

violationsoftheCodewillbesoobviousthattheywill
speakforthemselvesas,forexample,arefusaltogive
theaccusedahearing,arefusaltoallowhimtodefend
himself,arefusaltoexplainthenatureofthechargeto
himandsoforth.Thesegotothefoundationsofnatural
justiceandwouldbestruckdownasillegalforthwith.It
hardlymatterswhetherthisisbecauseprejudiceisthen
patentorbecauseitissoabhorrenttowellestablished
notionsofnaturaljusticethatatrialorthatkindisonly
amockeryofatrialandnotofthekindenvisagedbythe
laws of our land, because either way they would be
struck down at once. Other violations will not be so
obvious and it may be possible to show that having
regardtoallthatoccurrednoprejudicewasoccasioned
orthattherewasnoreasonableprobabilityofprejudice.
Instillanotherclassofcase,themattermaybesonear
theborderlinethatveryslightevidenceofareasonable
possibility of prejudice would swing the balance in
favouroftheaccused.
95.
It is most important to note here that the evidence of
RavindraPatilwouldbethesameastothefactsoftheincidentwhich
he has stated and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the
accused when the evidence of Ravindra Patil is relevant, taken on
recordu/s33ofIndianEvidenceAct.Itispresumedthateveryperson
hasknowledgethatoneshouldnotdrivethevehicleunderinfluenceof
...59/
..59..
Judgment
liquor and also without licence. So under such circumstances, the

argumentsofMr.Shivadethattheaccusedwasprejudicedforwantof
crossexaminationofPatilinviewofframingchargeu/sSec.304IIof
the IPC cannot be accepted. The accused had crossexamined
exhaustively and substantially Ravindra Patil before the Additional
ChiefMetropolitanMagistrateandalsosuggestedhimthattheaccused
wasnotdrivingthevehicleundertheinfluenceofliquor. Omissions
andimprovementsare alsobrought during crossexamination. What
wouldbetheeffectofomissionsandimprovementsisanotheraspect.
Butinmyopinion,theevidenceofRavindraPatiliscompleteevidence.
The facts deposed by him would not be changed, even the charge
u/s.304IIoftheIPCisframed. Moreover,ld.AdvocateMr.Shivade
alsocontendedthattheentireprosecutionu/s.304IIoftheIPCrevolves
aroundtheintentionandknowledgeoftheaccused.Iamalsoafraidto
acceptthesaidcontentiononthegroundthatu/s.304IIoftheIPC,the
question of intention does not arise. So after considering all the
submissionsofld.SPPMr.Gharatandld.AdvocateMr.Shivade,after
consideringtheprovisionsofSec.33oftheIndianEvidenceActandalso
havingregardtothenatureofthefactspertainingtotheincidentstated
bycomplainantRavindraPatilandalsotheopportunityavailedbythe
defence fully to crossexamine, I find that this is the perfect case
whereinevidenceofRavindraPatilwouldberelevantandadmissible
u/s.33oftheIndianEvidenceActincaseinhand.
C)
Themostimportantandcrucialpointtobeascertainedisthat
whethertheaccusedwasdrivingthecarontheinterveningnightof
27.09.2002and28.09.2002.
...60/
96.
..60..
Judgment
Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadevehementlysubmittedthat
RavindraPatilbeinga sole eye witnesstothe incident, hisevidence

should be scrutinized with great care and caution. Moreover the
evidenceofPatilisalsotobeanalysedandappreciatedwhetheritdoes
inspiresconfidence.
97.
The ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade relied on the case of
VadiveluThevarV/s.StateofMadras(AIR1957SC614),whereinit
isheldthat,
Evenastheguiltofanaccusedpersonmaybeproved
bythetestimonyofasinglewitness,theinnocenceofan
accusedpersonmaybeestablishedonthetestimonyofa
single witness, even though a considerable number of
witnessesmaybeforthcomingtotestifytothetruthof
thecasefortheprosecution.Hence,inouropinion,itis
asoundandwellestablishedruleoflawthatthecourtis
concernedwiththequalityandnotwiththequantityof
theevidencenecessaryforprovingordisprovingafact.
Generallyspeaking,oraltestimonyinthiscontextmay
beclassifiedintothreecategories,namely:
98.
(1)
Whollyreliable.
(2)
Whollyunreliable.
(3)
Neitherwhollyreliablenorwhollyunreliable.
The ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade also relied on the case of
Birappa & Anr. V/s. State of Karnataka [(2010) 12 SCC 182]

whereinitisheldasunder:
...61/
..61..
Judgment
WitnessesSolitary eyewitnessAppreciation of
testimonyofHeld,whereprosecutionstoryrestson
single eyewitness, such witness must inspire full
confidence, which was not the case herein, where
conduct of sole eyewitness was unnatural Conviction
reversed.
TheconductofPW1wasclearlyunnaturalwhich
makes his evidence extremely suspicious. As per the
prosecutionstoryhehadseenhisbrotherbeingcutupat
about6.00p.m.ataplacehalfakilometreawayfrom
the village near a temple and in an area which was
heavilypopulated(asKonnurwasalargevillage)and
hehadrushedhomeat6.00p.m.andthenreturnedat
8.00p.m.tolookforhisbrother.PW1inhisevidence
did not utter a single word as to the places he had
visitedwhileinsearchortheinquireshehadmadefrom
the neighbourhood which had a chemist shop, a tea
shop,aliquorvendandseveralresidentialhousesinthe
fieldsalongaverybusyroad.Thus,PW1wasperhaps
notaneyewitnessandhehadlodgedtheFIRonlyafter
the dead body had been discovered. This perhaps
explainsthedelayinthelodgingoftheFIR.
99.
Theld.SPPMr.Gharatwouldsubmitthattheevidenceof
RavindraPatilistotallytrustworthy,credibleandbelievableandcannot
bediscardedinproofthattheaccusedwasdrivingthevehicleatthe
timeofincident.Furthertheld.SPPalsosubmitsthatitisthespecific
...62/
..62..
Judgment
andpointeddefenceoftheaccusedthatDW1AshokSinghwasdriving
thevehicle.
100.
The ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade relied on the reported
judgmentoftheHon'bleApexCourtincaseof StateofHaryanav/s.
RamSinghinCriminalAppealNo.78of1999withRaiSahaband
Another Vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 1999
[(2002)2SupremeCourtCases426. Relyingonthesaidauthority,
ld.AdvocateMr.Shivadesubmittedthattheevidencetenderedbythe
defence witnesses cannot always be termed to be tainted one. The
defencewitnessesareentitledtoequaltreatmentandequalrespectas
that of the prosecution. The issue of credibility and trustworthiness
oughtalsotobeattributedtothedefencewitnessonaparwiththatof
prosecution.
101.
Soasstatedabove,letusappreciatetheevidenceadduced
by the prosecution to demonstrate that it was the accused who was

driving the vehicle and also let us appreciate the evidence of DW1
AshokSinghthathewasdrivingthevehicleinordertocometothe
conclusionwhoeitheroftwowasdrivingthevehicle.
102.
TheevidenceofRavindraPatilisnowtakenonrecordin
thiscasebeingrelevantu/s.33oftheIndianEvidenceAct. Asperhis
version, he was the bodyguard working with the accused from
28.08.2002.Heusedtoremainalongwiththeaccusedasapartofthe
duty. On 27.09.2002 complainant Ravindra Patil joined the duty at
08.00 p.m. As per his version at about 09.30 p.m. on 27.09.2002
...63/
..63..
Judgment
accused and Kamal Khan came out side the residence. They told
complainantRavindraPatilthattheyaregoingtovisitRainBar. The
accused is having Toyota Land Cruiser car bearing no.MH02DA32.
ComplainantPatil,KamalKhansatinthecarandtheaccuseddrovethe
car. TheaccusedreachedatRainBar. TheaccusedaskedRavindra
PatiltowaitoutsideandtheaccusedandKamalKhanwentinsidethe
Hotel.ThevisitofRainBarisadmittedbytheaccusedu/s.313ofthe
Cr.P.C.,buthedeniedthathewasdrivingthevehicle.
103.
The bodyguard of Mr. Sohel Khan (PW6 Balu Laxman)
alsometcomplainantRavindraPatiloutsidethehotel.SohelKhanhad
alsocomeinHotelRainBar.Atabout01.30a.m.accusedandKamal
cameoutsideRainHotel.
104.
TheevidencefurtherrevealsthatKamalsatonrearside,
theaccusedsatonthedriver'sseatandcomplainantsatontheseatnear
thedriver'sseat.ThecarreachednearJ.W.MariotHotel.Theaccused
andKamalKhanwentinsidetheHotel. ComplainantPatilwaitedout
side.Atabout02.15a.m.theaccusedandKamalKhancameoutside
the hotel. The accused then sat on the steering of his car. The
complainant sat near the driver's seat. The complainant asked the
accused whether he will drive the car. The accused neglected
complainantPatil.Kamalwassittingattherearsideofdriverseat.The
vehiclecameontheSt.AndrewsRoadwhichwasdrivenbytheaccused.
ComplainantPatilstatedinhisevidencethattheaccusedwasdrunk
anddrivingthemotorcarat90to100kmperhour.Beforecomingat
thejunctionofHillRoad,complainanttoldtheaccusedtolowerthe
...64/
..64..
Judgment
speedinviewoftherightturnahead.Theaccusedneglectedthesayof
complainantandhecouldnotcontrolthecarwhiletakingrightturn
andvehiclewentonthefootpath.Thepeopleweresleepingonthefoot
path.Themotorcarranoverthepersonssleepingonthefootpathand
climbed the three steps of American Laundry and gave dash to the
shutterofAmericanExpressshop(Laundry).Themotorcarbrokethe
shutterandwentinsideabout3andft.
105.
Therewasshoutingofthepeopleandthepeoplegathered
there.Thepeoplesurroundedthecar.However,withgreatdifficulty,
complainant,accusedandKamalwentoutofthecar. Peoplewerein
angrymood.ThecomplainantPatilshowedhisidentitycardandtold
thatheispolicepersonnel,therefore,theywerepacified.Theaccused
SalmanandKamalranaway.
106.
ComplainantPatilwenttothemotorcarandsawbelowit
andnoticedonepersonseriouslyinjuredhavingmultipleinjuriesand
fourinjuredpersonsbelowthecarwhoweretryingtocomeout.
107.
Complainant Patil then informed to the Control Room.
Within5minutes,Bandrapolicecamethere.Policerescuedtheinjured
personsandbodyofthedeadpersonwassenttoBhabhahospital.The
injuredweretakentothehospital. ComplainantPatilpointedoutthe
placetothepolice.
108.
Complainant Patil went to Bandra Police Station and
lodged the complaint. FIR is at Exh.P1. According to complainant
...65/
..65..
Judgment
Patil,theaccusedwasindrunkenstateandcouldnotcontrolthespeed
while taking turn. Further supplementary statement of Patil was
recordedon01.10.2002.
109.
SoiftheevidenceofPatilislookedinto,hehasdeposed
thatthevehiclewasdrivenbytheaccused.Incrossexaminationofld.
Advocate Shri Sampat Mehta, complainant Patil admitted that the
injuredwerebelowthecarandthepolicerescuedthemfrombeneath
thecarandsenttothehospital.ComplainantPatilalsostatedthatthe
deadbodyofthepersonwastakenoutfrombeneaththecarandwas
sent to the hospital. The police also drew the panchanama of the
incidentplaceandthenreturnedtoBandraPoliceStation.Complainant
PatilalsoadmittedthathewenttoBandraPoliceStationandlodgedthe
complaintwithYadavandKadam(PW26).Accordingtocomplainant,
hiscomplaintwasreadover tohim andthe contentsweretrueand
correct. It has come in the crossexamination that the incident had
taken place before about 1 hour of recording his complaint. So it
appearsthatthecomplaintwaslodgedimmediatelyaftertheincident
andtherewasnodelay.
110.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade relied on the case of Sucha
SinghV/s.StateofPunjab[(2009)11SCC584]whereinitisheldas
under:
In FIR, informant PW 4 stating that his mother sold
illicit liquor to maintain her children, while in his
evidence he stating that she sold only two bottles of
liquoroccasionallyHeld,ifbrothershadnothingtodo
...66/
..66..
Judgment
withsaleofliquor,asrightlyheldbytrialcourt,motive
mustbeheldtohavenotbeenprovedMoreover,PW
5 had categorically denied that his mother sold any
liquororearnedherlivelihoodbydoingliquorwork
Further,thereweresignificantcontradictionsinmatter
of number of injuries, time and place of occurrence,
sequenceofevents,mannerofidentificationofaccused
Therewasalsolackofmotiveandfalseimplication
ofcoaccusedMPW4hadmadevitalcontradictions
inhisFIRvisavisthesupplementarystatementwhenit
wasfoundthatrighthandofMwasamputatedandhe
was not in a position to inflict any injuryHence,
impugnedjudgmentreversingthejudgmentofacquittal
andconvictingappellantcannotbemaintained.
111.
During crossexamination, there are some omissions and
improvementsbroughtonrecord.PW1admittedthathehasnotstated
in FIR that the accused was in drunken state and was driving the
vehicle.However,inFIR(Exh.P1),thereismentionthattheaccused
SalmanKhanwasdrivingthevehicle.Thereisalsonomentioninthe
FIRthatcomplainantPatilaskedtheaccusedtolowerthespeedofthe
carasrightturniscoming.Howeverinsupplementarystatement,the
said fact is mentioned. Complainant also stated that there is no
mentioninFIRthattheaccusedwasdrivingthemotorcarinhighspeed
andwasindrunkenstateandcouldnotcontrolthespeedofthecar
whiletakingturn.However,ongoingthroughthecomplaint(Exh.P1),
thereismentionthattheaccusedwasdrivingthevehicleinhighspeed
...67/
..67..
Judgment
andhecouldnotcontrolthevehiclewhileturningontheHillRoad.
Thevehiclewentstraighttowardstheshoponthejunctionandranover
thepersonssleepingonthefootpathandonthestairsandrammedthe
shutterofAmericanExpress. Itappearsthatthecomplainantdidnot
mention in the FIR that the accused was in drunken condition.
However, in supplementary statement, there is mention that
complainantnoticedinviewofthebodylanguageoftheaccusedthat
hemighthaveconsumedthealcohol.
112.
RelianceisplacedincaseofAnimireddyVenkataRamana
andothers V/s. PublicProsecutor,HighCourtofAndhraPradesh

[2008(4)Mh.L.J.(Cri.)1(SupremeCourt)]. Inthesaidcase,itis
observedasunder:
(b) ContentsofFIRAfirstinformationisnotmeantto
beencyclopaedic.
12.
In the First Information Report all the accused
personswerenamedandovertactsontheirpartwere
alsostatedatsomelength.Eachandeverydetailofthe
incident was not necessary to be sated. A First
Information Report is not meant to be encyclopaedic.
While considering the effect of some omissions in the
FirstInformationReportonthepartoftheinformant,a
Courtcannotfailtotakeintoconsiderationtheprobable
physical and mental condition of the first informant.
Oneoftheimportantfactorswhichmayweighwiththe
Courtisastowhethertherewasapossibilityoffalse
...68/
..68..
Judgment
implicationoftheappellants. Onlywithaviewtotest
the veracity of the correctness of the contents of the
report,theCourtappliescertainwellknownprinciples
ofcaution.
13.
Once, however, a First Information Report is
found to be truthful, only because names of some

accused persons have been mentioned, against whom
the prosecution wasnotable toestablishitscase,the
entireprosecutioncasewouldnotbethrownawayonly
onthebasisthereof.Iffurthermorethepurportedentry
inthegeneraldiary,whichhadnotbeenproduced,is
not treated to be a First Information Report, only
becausesomeenquirieshavebeenmade,thesameby
itself would not vitiate the entire trial. Enquiries are
requiredtobemadeforseveralreasons.;oneofthemis
toascertainthetruthorotherwiseoftheincidentand
thesecondtoapprehendtheaccusedpersons.Arrestof
accusedpersons,asexpeditiouslyaspossible,leadstoa
betterinvestigation. AccusedNo.1wasaSarpanchof
thevillage. Accusedno.2isafairPriceShopdealer.
AccusedNo.3wasalsoadmittedlyawellknownperson.
Itisalsonotdeniedanddisputedthatotheraccusewere
alsorelatedtohim.
Inviewofthefactthatsuchanincidenthadtaken
place,indisputably itwouldimmediatelybe known to
thevillagers.Thosewhoholdsomerespectableposition
...69/
..69..
Judgment
inthevillageandparticularlythosewhoareconcerned
withtheadministrationofPanchayatwereexpectedto
bepresent.
113.
ComplainantPatilalsostatedincrossexaminationthatthe
vehicleLandCruiserdidnotstopfromHotelJ.W.Mariottotheplaceof
incident,oncestarted. Furtherthereisalsoomissiontostateinthe
complaintthattheaccusedneglectedthesayofcomplainanttolower
the speed. However the said fact is mentioned in supplementary
statementofPatildated1.10.2002.
114.
ComplainantPatildeniedthattheaccusedwasnotdriving
thecarfrombeginning. Healsodeniedthattheaccusedwasneither
drunknordriventhe car. Healso deniedthatthe accusedwas not
drivingthecaratthespeedof90to100kmperhourintheincident
night.Healsodeniedthathedidnottelltheaccusedtodrivethecar
slowlywhenitcamenearjunctionofSt.AndrewRoadandHillRoad.
115.
ComplainantPatilalsoadmittedincrossexaminationthat
therewashueandcryinmedia,likeT.V.pressagainsttheaccusedafter
happening the incident. He also admitted that the reporters of the
newspapers and T.V. channels were taking the interviews of the
persons.ComplainantPatilalsoadmittedthatreporterofMidDayhad
cometohimfortakinginterviewoftheincidentdated28.09.2002and
henarratedthereportertheincidenttakenplace. Thereporteralso
noteddownwhatcomplainanthadansweredhim. Thereporteralso
readovertohimwhattheywrote.Complainantalsoadmittedthaton
...70/
..70..
Judgment
nextdayi.e.30.09.2002interviewwasprintedandpublishedinMid
dayalongwithphotographs.Itappearsthatduringcrossexamination
thequestionswereaskedtothecomplainantPatilaboutinterview.The
Ld.SPPobjecteddefencetoputquestionstocomplainantonthealleged
interview.
116.
AquestionwasaskedtothecomplainantPatilduringcross
examinationwhetherthecomplainanthasstatedtothereporterofMid
DaywhetherAltafwasonthewheelwhenSalmanandKamalreturned
from Rain Bar and started to Salman's house by car. Complainant
repliedthathedoesnotremember. TheinterviewwasgiventoMid
Day.Anotherquestionwasaskedtothecomplainantastowhetherthe
complainantstatedbeforethereporterofMiddaythatafterreturning
from J.W. Mariot Hotel, Salman sat on the driver's seat of the car.
Complainantrepliedthathehasstatedso.
117.
Anotherquestionwasaskedtothecomplainantwhetherhe
hadstatedtothereporterthattheaccusedwasdrivingthevehicleat
thespeedof70kmperhour. Complainantrepliedthathedoesnot
remember.Furtherquestionwasaskedtothecomplainantwhetherhe
hasstatedto the reporter that Land Cruiser wasabout to hit atthe
electricpoll.Complainantrepliedthathehasstatedsotothereporter.
ThecopyoftheMidDayisproducedonrecord,subjecttoobjection.
Theld.SPPalsoobjectedshowingthecopyoftheMidDaynewspaper
tothewitness,duringevidencerecordedinthecourtofAdditionalChief
Metropolitan,Bandra.
...71/
118.
..71..
Judgment
Furthercomplainantadmittedthathestatedtothereporter
thatSalmanshoutedsaying,gadinahighumrahi(carisnotturning)
andthenhelostthecontrolofthevehicleandthenherammedtothe
AmericanExpressLaundry.Furthercomplainantalsoadmittedtohave
stated to the reporter that mob of 50 people gathered on the spot,
startedpeltingthestones.Complainantalsoadmittedtohavestatedto
thereporterthatSalmanrequestedtopublictolistenbuttheangrymob
keptthrowingthestones.Complainantalsoadmittedtohavestatedto
thereporterofMidDaythatinthemeanwhile,Kamalescapedinthe
crowdandminuteslaterSalmangotintoautorickshawandleft.Soit
appears that the above crossexamination is concentrated on the so
calledinterviewbythecomplainanttotheMiddaynewspaper. The
copyof Middaynewspaper dated30.09.2002isproduced onrecord
and marked as D1, subject to proving by appropriate evidence.
However, the defence failed to take steps to prove the said copy by
appropriate evidence, the said material cannot be considered in
evidence. The reporter who had taken the alleged interview is not
examinedbythedefence.Thedefencehasnotchosentoexaminethe
concerned reporter and therefore, the question by the reporter to
complainantandhisreplybecomesinadmissibleinevidence.
119.
Theld.SPPreliedonthereportedjudgmentoftheHon'ble
Apex Court in case of Tukaram S. Dighole Vs. Manikrao Shivaji

Kokate in civil appellate jurisdiction in Civil Appeal No.2829 of
2008 decided on 05.02.2010. The appeal u/s.116A of the
representationofPeopleAct1951isdirectedagainstthefinaljudgment
andorderdated25.01.2008renderedbytheHighCourtofJudicature
...72/
..72..
Judgment
atBombayinElection Petition No.13of2004preferredbyappellant

challengedintheelectionoftherespondentoftheLokSabhafrom69,
Sinnar Parliamentary Constituency in State of Maharashtra has been
dismissed. The short question for consideration was whether the
tribunalwasjustifiedindiscardingthecassetteplacedonrecordbythe
appellanttoprovetheallegationoftheappealbytherespondenttothe
voterstovoteoncommunalgroundamountingtoacorruptpractice
withinameaningofSec.123(3)oftheAct.
120.
Itisobservedthatthepetitionerhasproducedthecassette
on record. However, the petitioner has produced no evidence to

indicatethatacassettewastruereproductionoftheoriginalspeeches.
Thecassetteisnotapublicdocument.Noevidencetoindicatethatthe
cassettewasobtainedfromElectionCommission. Thepetitionerwho
examined himself has not adverted to this video recording in his
examinationinchief.Thepetitionerhasnotprovedthereceiptissued
bytheElectionCommissionandfailedtoprovethatVHScassettewas
thepublicdocument.Thatbeingtheposition,itisnotpossibletorely
onthecontentsofthecassette. Itisheldthatintheabsenceofany
cogentevidenceregardingthesourceandthemannerofitsaccusation,
theauthenticityofthecassettewasnotprovedandcouldnotbereadin
evidencedespiteofthefactthatthecassetteisapublicdocument.
121.
Inourcaseinhand,thereporterwhohadtakeninterview
ofthecomplainantisnotexamined. TheMidDaypaper(Exh.D1)is
notprovedinaccordancewithlaw. Thecontentsoftheintervieware
alsonotproved.Ifindsubstanceinthesubmissionofld.SPPthatthe
...73/
..73..
Judgment
question by reporter to the complainant and its reply becomes

inadmissibleinevidence.
122.
Inthepresentcase,admittedly,thecomplainantPatilwas
working with the accused. Nothing was brought on record that the
relationsofthecomplainantwithaccusedwerespoiled.Evenitisnot
thecasethatcomplainantwouldhavestoodbenefitedbyimplicating
the accused in a false case like the promise of being promoted or
increasinghissalaryorbenefitofanyothersort.
123.
ThecomplainantPatil,therefore,hastobeconsideredas
impartialwitness,inabsenceofanysuggestiontocastreasonabledoubt
on his evidence that he is intentionally deposing false against the
accused.
124.
No suggestion was given to complainant Patil in cross
examination that Altaf was driving the vehicle from the house of
accused upto Rain Bar and thereafter till J.W. Mariot. Even no
suggestionwasgiventothecomplainantPatilthatasAltafwashaving
giddinessheinformedAshok(DW1)andcalledAshoktoJ.W.Mariotto
taketheaccusedtohishouse.Thedefencefailstoputtheircasetothe
complainantPatilduringcrossexamination.
125.
Duringcrossexaminationspecificsuggestionwasgivento
the complainant that the accused was not driving the car from the
beginningintheincidentnight. Accordingtold.SPPtoconsiderthe
saidsuggestionincorrectprospective,thedefencehasadmittedthatat
...74/
..74..
Judgment
some point of time, the accused took charge of the car driving.
According to ld. SPP, the said evidence is required to be read in
consonancewiththequestionincrossexamination.Onpage7topline,
theincidentmotorcardidnotstopfromHotelMariottotheplaceof
incidentoncestarted.Thisinotherwords,meansthatthepersonwho
tookthecontrolofthewheelsofthevehiclefromJ.W.Mariothotelwas
drivingthecartillthetimeoftheincident. Accordingtotheld.SPP,
evenindefenceversionthatAltafwasdrivingthecarisacceptedand
theillogicalandfalseevidenceofDW1isdiscarded,theredoesnot
remainanyexcuse toconcludethattheaccusedwasnotdrivingthe
vehicle. According to the ld. SPP, the defence itself has shut the
possibilitiesthatneitherKamalKhannorcomplainantwasdrivingthe
vehicleatthetimeofaccidentinabsenceofanysuggestiontoanyof
the witnesses and on their own admission of the specific defence of
drivingbyAshokSinghwhohasprovedtobeselfcondemnliar.
126.
Ld.AdvocateMr.ShivadereliedonthecaseofYudhishtir
V/s.StateofMadhyaPradesh[(1971)3SCC436]whereinitisheld
asunder:
25. InfactthelearnedSessionsJudgehasalsoheld
thattheevidenceofP.Ws.1and6totheeffectthat
aftercomingoutofthehouseofBamdeotheyhadtold
thepeopleassembledoutsidethatallthefouraccused
persons had killed Surajkunwar cannot be believed.
SimilarlythelearnedSessionsJudgehasalsoheldthat
thesetwowitnessescannotbebelievedonthepointthat
along with Bamdeo the appellants had also actively
...75/
..75..
Judgment
participatedincausingthedeathofSurajkunwar.
26.
Normally on the basis of the above finding
recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, on would

expect the Court to hold the appellants not guilty of
murder. But curiously the learned Sessions Judge
proceedsonthebasisthatthoughtheevidenceofP.Ws.
1 and 6 itself would not be sufficient to convict the
appellants,somecorroborationwillhavetobefoundin
other independent evidence. We are unable to
appreciatethisreasoningofthelearnedSessionsJudge.
Corroborationforanyevidencegivenbyawitnessmay
befoundnecessarywhenaCourtisnotinclinedtoreject
theevidenceofthewitnesstobefalse.ACourtmaybe
willingtoactontheevidenceofawitnessbutitmaybe
oftheviewthatthewitnessisaninterestedoneandit
maynotbesafetoactonthatevidencealone.Insuch
circumstances, in order to enable the Court to act on
that evidence, it may seek corroboration from other
independentevidenceorcircumstances.Whenevidence
ofawitness,asinthiscaseofP.Ws.1and5hasbeen
rejected as unacceptable, there is no scope for
attemptingtofindcorroborationbyotherindependent
evidenceorothercircumstances.Iftherewasanyother
evidenceimplicatingtheappellants,itwasopentothe
Courttoconsidersuchevidenceevenafterrejectingas
falsetheevidenceofP.Ws.1and6.
...76/
127.
..76..
Judgment
Accordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,becauseofimprovements
intheversionofcomplainant,itcannotbedisbelievedthattheaccused
wasdrivingthevehicleattherelevanttimesincethecomplainanthas
noreasontofalselyimplicatetheaccusedlikeanimusorgrudge. On
thecontrary,presenceofthecomplainantisnaturalandadmitted.The
complainanthastoaccompanytheaccusedwhereveraccusedwentfor
shooting,hotelpartyinnightandday.
128.
Soiftheevidenceofcomplainantandcrossexaminationis
looked into, the evidence of complainant shows that at the time of

accident,theaccusedwasdrivingthevehiclecannotbediscardedas
falseanduntrustworthyandunbelievable.Onthecontrary,thesameis
fully trustworthy, credible and natural since the presence of the
complainantalongwithaccusedstandsjustifiedandcomplainanthas
no animus and grudge to falsely implicate the accused in a serious
offence.
129.
Further through the crossexamination it is brought on
recordthatwithin5to10minutespolicearrived.Thedeadbodywas
removed beneath the car and panchanama was prepared. The said
versioncorroboratesthe substantive evidence of panchwitnessPW1
SambhaGauda.Ifindthatfactscitedin[(1971),3SCC436]arenot
applicabletoourcaseinhand.
130.
Theprosecution alsoreliedontheversion oftheinjured
witnessesPW2MuslimShaikh(Exh.32),PW3MannuKhan(Exh.33),
...77/
..77..
Judgment
PW4Mohd.KalimIqbalPathan(Exh.36)andPW11Mohd.Abdulla
Shaikh(Exh.53).Accusedalsoadmittedu/s.313oftheCr.P.C.thatin
theincident,thepeoplewereinjured.Healsoadmittedthattheinjured
wereworkinginthebakery.Intheincident,Nurullawasexpired.The
statementsofPW2,PW3,andPW4werealsorecordedu/s.164ofthe
Cr. P.C. by the ld. Magistrate (Exh.35,36 & 37). The defence also
admittedpostmortemreportofNurulla(Exh.20). Exh.149isalso
giventothepostmortemreportofNurullaintheevidenceofPW27
I.O]. ThedefencealsoadmittedtheinjurycertificatesofAbdullaRauf
Shaikh[ (Exh.21)(Exh.155givenintheevidenceofI.O)],injury
certificateofMohd.AbdulPathan [(Exh.22) (Exh.151isgivento
thesaidcertificateintheevidenceoftheI.O)],injurycertificateof
MuslimNiyamatShaikh [(Exh.23)(Exh.156isgiventothesaid
certificate in the evidence of I.O) ]. Exh. 152 is the medical
certificateofMannubhaigivenintheevidenceofI.O.
131.
PW2MuslimShaikhsustainedthegrievousinjurytohis
leftleg. Hewasoperatedonhisleftlegandrodwasinserted. PW3

MannuKhanreceivedtheinjuryonhisrightlegandPW4receivedthe
injuryonhisrightsidelegandonlefthand.Boththesewitnesseswere
sleepingonthesamebed.PW11Mohd.Abdullawassleepingonthe
samebedwiththedeceasedNurullaandhesustainedfracturetohis
rightleg.MuslimShaikhsufferedinjuryoverhisleftleg.Thecarran
overthepersonofNurullaMehboobShaikhandhewascrushedbelow
thetyre. Nurullasuccumbedtoinjuryonthespotaftersometimeof
theincident.
...78/
132.
..78..
Judgment
Theld.SPPMr.Gharatreliedonthejudgmentreportedin
the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai V/s. State of Gujarat

(AIR1983SC753)andthejudgmentreportedinBoyaGangannaV/s.
StateofAndhraPradesh(AIR1976SC1541).TheHon'bleSupreme
CourtobservedthatMinorcontradictionsareboundtobetherewhen
ignorant and illiterate women are giving evidence. Even in case of
trainedandeducatedpersonsmemorysometimesplaysfalseandthis
wouldbemuchmoresoincaseofignorantandrusticwomen.Itmust
alsoberememberedthattheevidencegivenbyawitnesswouldvery
muchdependuponhispowerofobservationanditispossiblethatsome
aspectsofanincidentmaybeobservedbyonewitnesswhiletheymay
notbewitnessesbyanotherthoughbotharepresentattheplaceof
offence.Itisnotrighttorejectthetestimonyofsuchwitnessesmerely
onthegroundofminorcontradictions.
133.
The acceptance of injury certificate in evidence goes to
showthatthevictimsufferedtheinjuriesinthesameincidentandalso
showsthepresenceofwitnessesatthetimeoftheincident. Whatis
challenged is the opportunity to see. The ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade
vehemently submittedthatPW2, 3and4 allegedthat they sawthe
accused getting out from the driver's side. It would have been
impossible for any of them to have seen who was getting out from
whichdoor,astheywereunderthevehicle.Itiscontendedonbehalfof
accusedthatinfact,theaccusedgotdownfromthedriver'sseatdoor
beingthelastoffourpeopleinthecarinviewoftheevidenceofRam
AsarePandey.Accordingtoprosecution,thecarwasoccupiedbythree
personsatthetimeofincidentwhowereRavindraPatil(Bodyguardof
...79/
..79..
Judgment
theaccused),singerKamalKhan(friendofaccused)andtheaccused
himself.ItispertinenttonotethatKamalKhanwasoccupyingtheback
seatinthecarthroughoutisnotchallenged.
134.
There is also no dispute that the injured witnesses and
deceasedwereservinginAmericanBakery.AspertheversionofPW2
Muslim,atabout02.45a.m.healongwithMannu,SalimandNurulla
weresleepingnearAmericanLaundry.Heheardthesoundandfound
himselfbeneaththecar.Thewheelofthecarpassedoverhisleftleg.
Bakerypeoplehelpedtheinjuredtoremovefrombeneaththecar.PW
2alsodeposedthatpeopleweresayingthatSalmanKhanwasgotdown
fromthecar.PW2wasaskedtositdownneartheleftsideofthecar.
Onepersonalsogotdownfromtheleftsideofthecarsayinghewasa
policeman. PeoplethenreleasedSalmanKhan. Nurulla(deceased),
Abdul,MannuKhan,Kalimwerefoundbeneaththecar.PW2brought
tothehospitalbypolice. HisstatementwasalsorecordedbyBandra
Police.PW2sawaccusedgettingdownfromtherightsideofthecar.
135.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade relied on the case of R. Shaji
V/s. State of Kerala [(2013) 14 SCC 266], wherein it is held as

under:
24.
ThelearnedSeniorCounselfortheappellanthas
urged that statements of certain witnesses were

recordedunderSection164CrPCbeforetheMagistrate,
namely,Kalampasha(PW61)andDineshM.Pillai(PW
62).Thesaidstatementswerenotputonrecordbefore
thetrialcourt,andthesamewerenotmarked. Thus,
...80/
..80..
Judgment
thetrialstoodvitiatedastheaccusedhasbeendenied
an opportunity to contradict the aforementioned
statements of the witnesses, which were made under
oathbeforetheMagistrates,whichthougharenotinthe
natureofsubstantiveevidence,couldwellbeusedfor
thepurposeofcorroborationandcontradiction.Denial
of such opportunity is against the requisites of a fair
trial.
136.
In our case, statements u/s.164 of the Cr. PC of the
witnesses are on record and also accused got an opportunity to

contradictthestatements.
137.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade vehemently submitted that no
reliancecanbekeptontheversionofPW2MuslimShaikhinviewof
omissionsandimprovements. IncrossexaminationPW2statedthat
aftertwoandhalfmonthsoftheincident,hehadgonetoBandraPolice
Station and his statement was recorded there. PW2 also stated in
crossexamination that after one day from discharging him from
hospital, he went to his native place Uttar Pradesh and returned to
Mumbaion26.04.2014fromUttarPradesh,aftergoingonthenextday
of the discharge from the hospital. PW2 further stated that on
20.12.2006 he was not present in Mumbai and does not recollect
whetherhisstatementwasrecordedinPoliceStationon20.12.2006.
Heagainstatedthathisstatementwasnotrecordedon20.12.2006.He
againdeposedthatthefactthathisstatementwasrecordedinPolice
stationon20.12.2006iscorrect. Headmittedthathehasnotstated
...81/
..81..
Judgment
during the course of evidence that he hadnot seen anybody getting

downfromthecar.Exh.35isthecertifiedcopyofthestatementofPW
2recordedon20.12.2006intheCourtofMetropolitanMagistrate.He
contradicted portion marked A in his statement dated 20.12.2006.
There is no mention in the statement recorded on 20.12.2006 that
Salmanhasgotdownfromthecar.Furtherthereisnomentioninthe
statement dated 20.12.2006 that people caught Salman and at that
time,onepersongotdownfromthecarandtoldthatheispoliceand
therefore,peoplereleasedSalman. PW2alsoadmittedthatwithina
spanof5to10minutesinjuredreachedinBhabhaHospital.Hedenied
thathewastoldthathewouldgetenoughcompensation,therefore,he
was asked to tell the name of Salman. So there appears to be
improvementmadebythewitnessintheevidence.Theld.SPPGharat
alsodidnotrelymuchontheversionofPW2.However,itisafactthat
PW2isarusticwitnessandhewasinjuredintheincident.Hismedical
certificateisalsoadmittedbythedefence.
138.
TheprosecutionalsoreliedheavilyontheevidenceofPW3
Mannu Khan (Exh.33). He also deposed that he along with other

injuredwitnessesanddeceasedweresleepingnearAmericanLaundry.
According to him, he was sleeping on Ota (Platform). Suddenly he
heardbignoiseandfoundhimselfbeneaththecar.Thecarwasonhis
person. Kalim,Muslim,AbdullaandNurullafoundbeneaththecar.
Theinjuredwerecrying. Manypeoplecamethereandbakerypeople
rescuedPW3beneaththecar.Aftersometime,peoplegatheredonthe
spotandsayingaccusedcamefromthecar.
...82/
139.
..82..
Judgment
According to PW3 Mannu Khan, the car was white in
colourandtherewerethreepersonssittinginthecar.Theaccusedgot
downfromthedriver'sseat. Onebodyguardwasalsogotdownfrom
thecar.Thirdpersonalsogotdownfromthebackportionofthecar.
TheevidenceofPW3alsorevealsthatbakerypeoplecaughtSalmanon
theroad.Salmanwassodrunkthathefelldown.Hestoodbutagain
felldownandagainhestoodandranawayfromthespot.
140.
PW3 Mannu was also brought in the hospital and
dischargedaftersometime.AbdullaandMuslimwereadmittedinthe
hospital. His statement was recorded in police station as well as
u/s.164oftheCr.P.C.beforeBandraMetropolitanMagistrate.Exh.34
isthestatementrecordedbeforeMetropolitanMagistrateanditbears
hissignature.
141.
IncrossexaminationPW3Mannustatedthatafter24
daysoftheincident,hisstatementwasrecorded. Heisunabletotell
lengthoftheota(platform)andaccordingtohim,twopeoplecaneasily
accommodateonota.PW3furtherdeposedthattheAmericanBakery
wasalsohavingota(platform).Hestatedthatonecannotsleeponthe
stairs. Heisunabletotellwhetherthe roadpassinginfrontofthe
bakeryisSt.AndrewsRoad. However,headmittedthatHolyFamily
HospitallocatedonHillRoadattherightsideinfrontofthebakeryand
atthedistanceof200ft.awayfromthebakery.
142.
PW3 Mannu then stated in crossexamination about
recordingofhisstatementu/s.164pftheCr.P.C.Accordingtohim,the
...83/
..83..
Judgment
policehaveshownthestatementtoBandraCourtandstatedthatitis
the statement of PW3. According to PW3, after perusing the
statement,theMagistrateaskedPW3thequestions.PW3toldtothe
Magistrateasperstatementandthereafterhissignaturewastakenon
thestatement.
143.
PW3MannuKhanremainedonthe spotforaperiodof
onehouraftertheincident.Within1015minutespolicearrivedon
thespotaftertheaccident. AccordingtoPW3Mannu,hisheadwas
towardsAmericanBakeryandhislegsweretowardstheDairywhenhe
waslying.SimilaristhepositionofKalim.Accordingtohim,hewoke
upafterhearingthenoiseandstartedfeelingpaidinhisbody. The
front right side of the car was resting on the ota and left side was
restinginbetweenstairsofAmericanLaundryandBakery. Theright
legofPW3wasstuckonthefrontrightwheelofthecar.Accordingto
PW3,hecouldnotmovefromtheplacetillthecarwaslifted. The
samewasthepositionofKalim.TherightfootofPW3wasstuckunder
thewheel. PW3wasremovedfirstthanKalim. PW3furtherstated
thatbacksideofthecarwasrestingonthefootpathwhichwasinlevel
withtheroad. Asbacktyresofthecarwererestingontheroad,this
evidencestrikesofthedefencethatthedoorsofthecarweresostuck
and jammed withthe shutter that the same could notbe openedto
comeout.
144.
AccordingtoPW3Mannu,thecarwasliftedbyholdingthe
bumperatthetimeofremovingPW3andhecouldremovetheleg.
PW3furtherstatedthatpolicealsocalledthecraneinordertoremove
...84/
..84..
Judgment
thecar. Within15minutesoftheincident,cranewasarrivedonthe
spot.Nurullawasremovedfrombeneaththecarafterremovingthecar
bycrane.Thecarwasliftedwiththeaidofcraneand15minutestime
requiredtoremovethecarbycrane.
145.
SoiftheevidenceofPW3Mannuislookedinto,itcanbe
saidthatPW3wasrescuedfrombeneaththecarbeforearrivalofthe
crane.Accordingtohim,after15minutesoftheincident,Salmancame
outofthecar.Thereisomissioninthestatementbeforepoliceonthe
partbyPW3totheeffectthatbakerypeoplecaughtSalman.Thesaid
factisalsonotmentionedinthestatementrecordedu/s.164oftheCr.
P.C.Pw3didnotstatebeforepolicethatSalmanwasdrunkandhefell
downandagainstoodup. Thesaidfactisalsonotmentionedinthe
statementrecordedu/s.164oftheCr.P.C. PW3alsounabletotell
aboutthepositionoffrontleftdoorofthecarwithreferencetothe
shutteroftheLaundry. Heisalsounabletosayatwhatdistancethe
fronttyreandbacktyrewerelocatedfromtheshutter.PW3hadnot
seenthestonepeltingonthecar.PW3statedincrossexaminationthat
afterrunningawayfromthespotbySalman,thecarwasremovedby
thecrane.
146.
PW3Mannuhadnotseenthebodyguardearlierandhe
admittedthatthepolicetoldhimatthetimeofrecordinghisstatement
thatbodyguardwaspresentinthecarandtherefore,hethoughtthat
whateverpolicehavetoldmustbecorrect. Thereisalsoomissionon
thepartofPW3tostateinthestatementbeforetheMagistratethat
thirdpersongotdownfromthebacksideofthecarandalsothesaid
...85/
..85..
Judgment
factdoesnotfindplaceinthepolicestatement. Incrossexamination
PW3statedthatthirdpersongotdownfromthebacksideofthecarby
leftside.
147.
PW3Mannuadmittedthatduetoincident,hewasunable
tothink,shockedandconfused.After34hoursoftreatment,heagain
cametothespot.Hedeniedthatonthesayofpolice,heisstatingthat
Salman got down from the driver side. Though there are some
omissionsbroughtintheevidenceofPW3,inmyopinion,thatwillnot
affecthisevidence.WehavetoreadwholeevidenceofPW3.
148.
PW4Mohd.KalimIqbalPathanisalsoexaminedbythe
prosecution.HealsodeposedthathewassleepinginfrontofAmerican
Laundry.MannuKhanwasalsosleepingnearhim.PW4heardabig
noiseandhenoticedthatonevehiclewasoverhisperson.Hesustained
injuryonhisrightsidelegandonhislefthand.Theotherinjuredand
deceasedNurullawerefoundbeneaththecar.Bakerypeoplehelpedto
remove injured from beneath the car. PW4 also stated in cross
examinationthattheaccusedgotdownfromtherightsideofthecar.
Many people were telling Salman get down from the car, thereby
Salmangotdownfromthecarandranawayfromthespot. Salman
Khan ran away from the spot after seeing the crowd. One police
bodyguardwasalsopresentinthecarandhewasPatil.Statementof
PW4 was also recorded in Bandra Court u/s.164 of the Cr. P.C.
(Exh.37).PW4alsostatedthattheaccusedisthesamepersonwhogot
downfromtherightsideofthecar.
...86/
149.
..86..
Judgment
PW3 Mannu and PW4 Mohd. Kalim have deposed that
theyweremadetositnearlaundryaftertheaccident.Thedefencehas
broughtonrecordincrossexaminationthatthebacktyresofthecar
wererestingontheroadi.e.attheendofthestairs. Thisevidence
strikesofdefencethatdoorsofthecarweresostuckandjammedwith
theshutterthatthesamecouldnotbeopenedtocomeout.PW4also
pleadsignoranceaboutthenumberofthepersonsoccupyingthecar.
150.
PW4 Mohd. Kalim also stated in crossexamination that
after45daysoftheincident,policerecordedhisstatement.PW4also
statedthatthenewsoftheincidentwaspublishedinthenewspaperson
thenextdayoftheincident. PW4statedthatthepolicehadshown
himthestatement.PW4statedthathecannotsaywhathadwrittenin
thestatementbutadmittedthathethought,whateverwrittenbythe
policewastrue. HeisunabletotellwhenhewascalledinBandra
Courttorecordthestatementu/s.164oftheCr.P.C. PW4admitted
thatthepolicetoldhimthatthestatementistoberecordedinBandra
Courtlikeastatementrecordedinpolicestation. Hedoesnotknow
whatwaswritteninthestatementbeforetheMagistrate,buthesigned
outthestatementbecauseofpoliceandtheMagistrate.Headmittedin
crossexaminationthathewassleepingonota(platformofAmerican
Laundry).
151.
PW4Mohd.Kalimalsostatedincrossexaminationthathe
heardthebignoiseandhewasnotknowingwhathadhappened.His
lefthandwasstuckonthebumperofvehicle.BakerymanhelpedPW4
togetawayfrombeneaththecar.Bumperwasnotseparatedfromthe
...87/
..87..
Judgment
car. After 10 15 minutes PW4 was succeeded to get away from

beneaththecar. Hestatedthathewasundertheshockduetothe
accident.FirstMannuwasrescuedthereafterPW4wasrescued. Car
wasatthedistanceof5to7ftawayfromtheplacewherePW4was
sleeping.AccordingtoPW4,peopledidnotliftthecar.Afterarrivalof
crane,thecarwaslifted.Hestatedthatbacktyreofthecarwasburst.
HeisunabletotellwhetherportionmarkedAwasstatedbeforethe
Magistratewhilerecordingthestatement. Hecannotsaywhetherthe
bakery people pushed the car. The incident of removing the car by
cranewasdoneafter15minutesoftheincident.
152.
PW4Mohd.Kalimfurtherstatedincrossexaminationthat
hehadnotseenbodyguardofSalmanpriortotheincident. People
weretellingthatbodyguardofSalman.Bodyguardwaspresentonthe
spotaftertheincidentforabout15minutesandthenheleftthespot
anddidnotreturntillthetimePW4waspresent.PW4statedthatthe
roadwasextendeduptothestairs.
153.
It has come in the crossexamination that PW4 Mohd.
Kalimhadseenboththetyresofthevehiclerestingonthestairsupto
theshutter.Thevehiclewenttotheshutterandtheshutterwasbent.
Boththecornersofthebumpertouchedtheshutter.Backtyresofthe
vehiclewererestingattheendofthestairs.Thisevidencestrikesofthe
defencethatthe doorsofthecarweresostuckorjammedwiththe
shutterthatthesamecouldnotbeopenedtocomeout.PW4alsohad
notseenwhoweresittingonthecar.After10minutesoftheincident,
Salmangotdownfromthecar.Thewitnesshasdeniedthesuggestion,
...88/
..88..
Judgment
twopersonsinadditiontoSalmanranawayfromthespot.Thesecond
personranawayafterSalman.SalmanKhanremainedonthespotfor5
to10minutesperiod.PW4cannotsaywhethertwopersonsranaway
from the car. He cannot say portion marked A1 stated before the
Magistratebyhim.HecannotsaywhyportionmarkedAwaswritten
inthestatementu/s.164oftheCr.P.C. Healsocannotsaywhether
portion marked A was correctly recorded in examinationinchief
beforetheMetropolitanMagistrate.
154.
PW4Mohd.Kalimdeniedthesuggestionthathehadnot
seenSalmanKhangettingdownfromtherightsideportionofthecar.
Healsodeniedthatpolicetutoredhimtostateagainsttheaccusedin
ordertoclaimmorecompensation.
155.
SotheevidenceofPW3MannuKhanfindscorroboration
throughPW4Mohd.Kalimonthematerialparticularsaboutsustaining
injuriesintheaccidentandsaw accusedSalmanKhan gettingdown
fromtherightsideportionofthecar(driverside).
156.
PW11Mohd.AbdullaShaikhisalsoinjuredintheincident
and according to him, he along with other injured witnesses were

sleepingnearAmericanLaundry.Nurulla(deceased)wasalsosleeping
alongwithhim. Healsodeposedthatatabout02.30a.m.suddenly
some heavy object was passed from his leg and his right leg was
fractured.Kalim,MannuandNurullasustainedinjuriesintheincident.
Theinjuredcriedforhelp,therebybakerymen,taxidriverrescuedthe
injuredbyremovingfrombeneaththecar.PW11wasalsorescuedby
Bakerymen,taxidriverfrombeneaththecar.
...89/
157.
..89..
Judgment
The evidence of PW11 Mohd. Abdulla Shaikh further
revealsthatbakerymanandtaxidriverweretellingthattheaccident
wascausedbySalmanKhan. PW11hadseenSalmanKhanafterhe
wasrescued.Twopersonswerealsowithhim,buthedoesnotknow
whowerethey.Accordingtohim,NurullawasalsowithhiminBhabha
Hospitalandhewasalsocryinginpain
158.
IncrossexaminationPW11Mohd.AbdullaShaikhstated
thatintheincidentheandNurullawereentangledinthecar. After
accident,becauseofdriving,PW11foundhimselfandNurullaatthe
shortdistancefromtheplacewheretheyweresleeping. PW11also
stated that after the accident, sleeping position of the persons was
shifted.SalmanKhanwasstandingthere,priortoleavingthespotby
PW11 to the hospital. PW11 was lying for a period of 10 to 15
minutesbeneaththecar.Hedoesnotknowhowcarwaslifted.Tillthe
carwaslifted,PW11andNurullawerecryingforhelp. Afterhalfan
houroftheaccident,PW11wasbroughtinBhabhaHospital.Thereis
omission on the part of PW11 to state in the statement before the
policethatthebakerymanandtaxidriverweresayingthattheaccident
was caused by Salman Khan. The said fact is not mentionedin his
statement.
159.
IftheevidenceofPW11Mohd.AbdullaShaikhislooked
into,hehasspecificallydeposedthattwopersonswerewithSalman.
No suggestion was given by the defence about the four persons
travellingbythe car. PW11alsosustainedthe grievoushurttohis
...90/
..90..
Judgment
rightleg. SoiftheevidenceofPW3MannuKhanandPW4Mohd.
Kalimislookedinto,theywererescuedfrombeneaththecarpriorto
arrivalofthecraneandtheywereconscious. Theysustainedminor
injuries. IthascomeintheevidenceofPW3thattherewerethree
personsinthecarandtheaccusedgotdownfromthedriver'sside.So
alsoPW4corroboratedtheevidenceofPW3thataccusedgettingdown
fromtherightsideofthecarandmanypeoplewereaskingaccusedto
getdownfromthecar. ThoughPW4didnotknowwhetherthecar
climbedthestairs,however,itisamatterofcommonsensethatunless
thecarclimbsthestairs,howitwouldrunovertheinjuredsleepingon
theotla(platform)neartheshutterandwouldramintotheshutter.
160.
In crossexamination complainant Patil admitted that left
sideoftheincidentmotorcarwaspressedandtherewasnocondition
oftheincidentmotorcartoopentheleftsidedoors.ComplainantPatil
alsostatedinhisexamination in chiefthatafteraccidentwithgreat
difficultywewentoutofthemotorcar.Nospecificdetailsaregiven
howcomplainantcame outfrom the car. However,in viewof the
crossexaminationofPW3andPW4,itisbroughtonrecordthatthe
backtyresofthecarwererestingattheendofthestairsi.e.onthe
road.Thisevidencestrikesofthedefencethatthedoorsofthecarwere
stuck and jammed and the same could not be opened to come out.
SalmanKhanalsostatedinstatementrecordedu/s.313oftheCr.P.C.
thathedidgetdownfromthedriversideofthecar.Healsostatedin
thewrittenstatementfiledu/s.313oftheCr.P.C.thatasleftfrontside
doorwasjammed,hecrossedovertothedriverseatfromthefrontleft
seatwherehehadbeensittingandgotoutfromthedriver'sdoor.Soit
...91/
..91..
Judgment
isestablishedthatSalmanKhangotdownfromtherightsidedoori.e.
fromthedriver'sdoor.
161.
ThereisalsoevidenceofPW13AminKasamShaikh. He
alsoknewtheinjured.HealsousedtosleepnearA1Bakery.Heheard
bignoiseasabout2.30am.HewenttowardsthedirectionofAmerican
Laundry. He saw one vehicle went in American Bakery. He saw
MuslimandAbdulwerefoundbeneaththecar. HeremovedMuslim
frombeneaththecar.HecalledrickshawandMuslimwasmadetosit
intherickshaw.KalimMohd.andMannuKhanweretheotherinjured.
There is also omission on his part to state in the statement that he
calledrickshawwhichwasstandingnearthejointofAndrewsRoadand
HillRoad. HealsodeposedthatpeopleweretellingSalmanCome
outfromthecar.Hisevidencecorroboratesevidenceofotherinjured
personsaboutsustainingtheinjuriesbythem.
162.
PW8RamAsarePandeywasrunningaDairyatthetimeof
theincidentonHillRoad,Bandra(W.).On27.09.2002,atabout10.30
p.m.heclosedthedairy. Atabout02.45a.m.heheardthebignoise
andhesawpeoplewerecryingMargaye MarGaye. Peoplewere
runningfromA1BakerytowardsAmericanLaundry.PW8alsowent
thereandsawwhitecolourcarrammedtheshutterofAmericanExpress
Laundry. Onepersonwasfounddeadandfourpersonswereinjured.
According to him, the injured were working in the bakery. He saw
accusedgettingdownfromtherightfrontsideofthecar. Onepolice
personwaspresentinthecarwhotoldhisnameas'Patil'.Policecame
onthespotandsenttheinjuredpersonstoBhabhaHospital. PW8
...92/
..92..
Judgment
statedthattwopersonswerepresentinthecarinadditiontoSalman
KhanandpoliceconstablePatil,buthedoesnotknowwhowerethose
persons.
163.
In crossexamination PW8 Ram Pandey stated that his
statement was recorded after 4 5 days of the incident. He also

admittedthattheTarRoadwastouchingtothefirststairofAmerican
BakeryandAmericanLaundry.AccordingtoPW8,withinhalfminute
time,onecanreachfromhisdairytoAmericanBakery.Hesaw50to
60peoplegatheredthere standingaroundthecar. Thepeoplewho
werebelowthecarwerecryingforhelp. Healsoadmittedthatleft
frontdoorofthecarwassotouchedtoAmericanBakery,itcouldnotbe
openedanditwasjammedwiththeshutter.Peopleweretryingtopull
thecarandpeopleweresucceededtoopentherightfrontsideofthe
door.Peoplewhogatheredonthespotwereangryinmoodandpelted
stonesonthecar.
164.
In crossexamination PW8 Ram Pandey also stated that
when Salman got down from the car, he saw the car and Patil was
standingoutsidethecarnearthedrivingside.PriortoSalmangetting
down,Patilwasstandingnearthecar.Franciswhostaysinhisbuilding
wasalsopresentonthespot.FrancishelpedSalmantoleavethespot.
PW8furtherstatedthathedoesnotknowwheretwopeoplesittingin
thecar,besidesSalmanandpoliceconstablePatilhadgone.
165.
Aspertheprosecutionstory,therewereonlythreepersons
i.e.SalmanKhan,PatilandKamalKhanwhiletravellinginthecar.If
...93/
..93..
Judgment
accordingtold.AdvocateMr.Shivadethatfourthpersonwouldbethe
driver,then the driver wouldnotbesittingin the car. Ifreallythe
driver was there, he would have standing out side the car. Even
defenceneversuggestedPW8totheeffectthatthefourthpersonwas
thedriverinthecarorthevehiclewasdrivenbyAshokSingh.
166.
Itispertinenttonote thatPW7Francisisan important
independentwitness.Bothprosecutionaswellasdefencereliedonhis
evidence. Incrossexaminationithascomeonrecordforaperiodof
halfanhour,PW7remainedonthespot.Healsoknewthepeoplewho
werepresentonthespot.Thatduringhalfanhourperiodofremaining
on the spot, PW7 did not see Ram Pandey on the spot. He stated
specificallyinthecrossexaminationthatduringhalfanhourperiodhe
didnotseeRamPandeyonthespot. Sofactthat,PW8RamAsare
Pandeyvisitedthespotandifreallyhehadseenfourpersonssittingin
thecarincludingSalmanandhisbodyguardraisesadoubt.
167.
ThereisalsoevidenceofPW9RizwanRakhangi.Hewas
theManagerofRainBar&Restaurant.Hehasdeposedaboutthevisit
ofaccused,SohelKhantoRainBar.AfterreturningSalmanKhanfrom
Rain Bar, he accompanied Salman Khan and Sohel Khan. In cross
examinationhesawfourpersonsincludingSalmansittinginthecar.
168.
ItispertinenttonotethatfromRainBarandRestaurant
SalmanKhanvisitedJ.W.Mariot.Nosuggestionwasgiventothesaid
witnessastowhetherAltafwasdrivingthecar. Itisthecaseofthe
accusedthatAltafdrovethecarfromhishouseuptoJ.W.Mariotvia
...94/
..94..
Judgment
RainBarRestaurant. AtJ.W.Mariot,Altaffeltgiddinesstherebyhe
called Ashok to take Salman to the house. So who was the fourth
person other than bodyguard Patil, Salman Khan and Kamal Khan
sittinginthecar.IfaccordingtodefencethefourthpersonwasAltaf,
thenitoughttohavebeensuggestedtothewitnesses,butthatisnot
done. EvencomplainantPatilneverstatedinhisevidencethatAltaf
wasdrivingthevehicleuptoJ.W.Mariotfromthehouse. Eventhere
wasnosuggestiongiventoRavindraPatilonbehalfofthedefence.It
hascomeonrecordonlywhenaccusedu/s.313oftheCr.P.C.stated
aboutAltaf.
169.
ThereisalsoevidenceofPW6BaluLaxmanMuthe. He
wasbodyguardofSohelKhanandwasonnightdutyon27.09.2002.
Accordingtohim,atabout10.30p.m.SohelKhanstartedtogotoRain
Barbycar.PW6Baluwaswithhim.SohelKhanwentinsidethebar.
PW6 was asked to stand outside the restaurant. After sometime,
SalmanKhanandhisfriendalsocamewithbodyguard. Thenameof
friendwasKamalKhan. SalmanKhanenteredintherestaurantand
PW6andRavindraPatilwerechitchattingoutsidetherestaurant.At
about01.45a.m.SalmanKhanandSohelKhancameout.KamalKhan
andVikramPhadnisalsocameout. SohelKhan,VikramPhadnisand
PW6returnedtoGalaxyApartmentatabout02.00a.m.
170.
PW6BaluMutheadmittedincrossexaminationthatafter
15 minutes of entering Sohel Khan in the restaurant, Salman Khan

arrivednearRainBar.PW6wasstandingnearthegateofrestaurant.
PW6 stated that he had not seen the car of Salman Khan near the
restaurant.
...95/
171.
..95..
Judgment
IfreallyAltafdrovethevehiclebytakingSalmanatRain
Bar,thenPW6Baluwouldhavenoticedthesaidfactorwouldhave
statedaboutAltafinhisevidence.DefenceneversuggestedPW6Balu
thatvehiclewasdrivenbyAltafuptoRainBarRestaurant.
172.
PW12 Kalpesh Verma was entrusted with the duty of
Parking Assistant in J.W. Mariot Hotel. He used to park the owner

drivencarintheporcharea. Theparkingoftheownerdrivencaris
alsotermedasvaletparking.Accordingtohim,atthetimeofparking
the owner driven car, one tag is to be delivered to the owner and
anothertagwiththekeyusedtoremainwiththehotel.Atthetimeof
leaving the hotel, the owner return the tag to the hotel and after
matchingthekeywithtagnumber,thevehicleusedtodeliverinthe
possessionoftheowner.
173.
AspertheversionofPW12KalpeshVerma,hiscolleague
YogeshhadparkedtheLandCruiservehicleinthevaletparking. He
alsosawSalmancomingoutfromthehotel.PW12toldhiscolleague
YogeshtogivethekeyasPW12wastotakeoutthevehiclefromvalet
parking.AccordingtoPW12,LandCruiserwasparkedintheporchof
the hotel. PW12 then took the vehicle back in reverse position.
Salman came and sat on the driver's seat. Two persons were with
SalmanKhan.OnewasKamalKhan.Thirdpersonwasthebodyguard
ofSalmanKhan.KamalKhatsatonthebackseatofthedriver'sseat.
AccordingtoPW12,whenhehandedoverthecartoSalman,hesaw
bodyguard(Patil)wasstandingnearthedriversidedoor.WhenPW12
...96/
..96..
Judgment
triedtoclosethedoor,SalmanaskedhowmanycolleaguesofPW12
werethere. PW12repliedthat45colleaguesofhimwerethere.
SalmantookRs.500/fromKamalandgavePW12bywayoftip.PW
12thenclosedthedriversidedoorandthenlefttheplaceforkeeping
themoneyinaboxavailableinthedeskinporcharea.WhenPW12
returnedtothehotel,hedidnotseethecar.
174.
If the above evidence is looked into, then it was quite
natural thatbodyguardPatil wasstandingnear the driverside door.

When Salman sat on the driver's seat. Patil being bodyguard was
entrusted the duty of security of Salman Khan. Therefore, he was
standingnearthedriversidedoor.Furtherwhenthekeywasgivenby
Salman Khan, it is presumed that Salman Khan started to leave the
place.Tipistobegivenatthetimewhenoneleavestheplace.PW12
nowherestatedaboutthepresenceoffourthperson.
175.
IncrossexaminationPW12KalpeshVermaadmittedthat
thereiscabinexistingontheleftsideofporch.Onesecurityguardis
deployed on the cabin. The keys having tags available in cabin.
Entrancedoorisdoubledoorand15to20ft.inwidth. Onehasto
enter from the entrance gate and for leaving hotel, exist door is
provided.Thereisalsoadooravailableontheleftsideoftheentrance
gatefortakingluggage,articlesinthehotel.PW12alsostatedincross
examinationthatinthelobbyoftheporch,fourpillarsareexistingand
theremaybedistanceof100ft.betweentwopillarsexistinginpost
lobby. Thevehiclesarenotallowedtoparkinfrontoftheentrance
lobby.
...97/
176.
..97..
Judgment
AccordingtoPW12KalpeshVerma,onecanreachparking
slotfromthekeycabinwithinoneortwominutes. Healsoadmitted
thatnearabout100to150vehiclesusedtoarriveinthehotel.
177.
PW12KalpeshVermaalsoadmittedthatonthetag,the
dateismentionedaswellastimeofarrivalanddepartureismentioned.
Thereisalsomentionedcarnumber,nameofvaletdrivermentionedon
thetag.Valetdriverusedtosignthetag.Atthetimeofhandingover
thecar,thepersonwhohandsoverthecaralsosignsonthetag.
178.
FurtherPW12KalpeshVermastatedincrossexamination
that during investigation, police took the tag. According to PW12,

parking tag is the evidence regarding parking the vehicle as well as
returningthevehicleatthetimeofleavingthehoteltothepersonwho
takesthevehicle. PW12statedthatinthepresentcase,theperson
whoparkedtheLandCruisedfilledtheparkingtagandPW12didnot
fill the tag at the time of parking. Name of Yogesh Kadam was
mentionedonthetag.
179.
PW12KalpeshVermafurtheradmittedthatthedoorsof
thecarusedtoclosesothatthereshouldnotbeanyobstacleforother
carspassingnearthecar.Thepersonsittinginthecarisnotallowedto
remain open the door till the other occupants are arrived as it may
causeobstructiontotheothercarspassingnearby.Pw12alsoadmitted
thathedidnotseeatwhattimeandinwhatmannertheLandCruiser
leftthehotel. HestatedincrossexaminationthatKamalKhansaton
...98/
..98..
Judgment
the back portion of the car behind Salman Khan. Nobody sat near
KamalKhanontheleftsideinthebackportionofthecar.PW12some
how improved in crossexamination thathe wasremembering atthe
timeofgivingstatementthatonwhichportionofthebackseatKamal
KhanwassittingandhesatbehindSalmanKhan. PW12statedthat
KamalKhansatbacksideofthecaronleftside.Hedeniedthatheis
deposingfalsethatSalmanKhanwassittingondriver'sseat.
180.
IfentireevidenceofPW12KalpeshVermaislookedinto,
onefindsthattherewereonlythreepersonsi.e.SalmanKhan,Kamal
KhanandbodyguardPatilpresentinthecar.SalmanKhansatonthe
driver'sseat.HegaveRs.500/tiptoPW12Kalpesh.Thetipusedto
begivenatthetimeofleavingtheplace.Accordingtodefence,DW1
Ashok came and took the charge of the vehicle. However, this fact
cannotbedigestedbecausePW12KalpeshcouldhavenoticedAshok
comingintheporchnearthecar.Moreover,ithascomeinthecross
examinationthatonecanreachparkingslotfromthekeycabinwithin
oneortwominutes.ItishighlyimprobablethatPW12wouldnothave
noticed Ashok if really he had come at the place where car was
standing. Whatwouldbetheeffectofnonproductionoftheparking
tagandnonexaminationofYogeshKadamwillbediscussedlateron.
181.
ItisnotthecaseoftheaccusedthatsincebeginningAltaf
was at the wheel when Salman Khan started for going to Rain Bar
Restaurant from his house along with complainant Patil and Kamal
Khan.Itisalsonotthespecificdefencesincebeginningoftheaccused
thattheAshokwasdrivingthevehiclefromJ.W.Mariot.Itisalsonot
...99/
..99..
Judgment
thedefenceoftheaccusedsincethebeginningthatAltaffeltgiddiness
andinformedAshoktocometoJ.W.MariotinordertoreachSalmanto
hishouse.ItispertinenttonotethatintheevidenceofPW8Pandey
andincrossexaminationofPW9Rizwan,ithascomeonrecordabout
thepresenceoffourpersonsincludingSalmanKhan,hisbodyguardand
KamalKhan.Itseemsthatthedefencethendevelopedthetheorythat
thefourthpersonmustbeadriverandthecarwasdrivenbyhim.Such
inferencecannotbeprobableandacceptable. Thedefencehastoput
hiscasespecifically,positivelysincebeginningwhichisnotdoneinthe
presentcase.Defencecannottaketheadvantageoftheimprovements
ofthewitnesseswhichismadeinourcaseregardingfourpersons.Itis
pertinenttonotethatitwasneversuggestedtoanyprosecutionwitness
since beginning about Altaf driving the vehicle from the house of
SalmanKhantillRainBarRestaurantandthereafteruptoJ.W.Mariot.
AtJ.W.Mariot,AshokSinghtookthechargeofvehicle.Soitcannotbe
acceptable,therewasfourthpersonpresentinthecarandhewasa
driverintheabsenceofpositivesuggestionstothewitnesses.
182.
Now turning to the most important twist of the case
broughtinthecasebydefencewhenSalmanKhanexaminedu/s.313of
the Cr. P.C. Salman Khan stated u/s.313 of the Cr. P.C. that on
27.09.2002atabout11.00p.m.hewenttoRainBaroncallingofhis
brotherSohel. Kamal,bodyguardPatilwerewithSalmanandthecar
wasdrivenbyAltaf.SalmansatontheleftfrontsidenexttoAltafwho
drove the car to Rain Bar. After spending some time in Rain Bar,
SalmanKhanwenttoJ.W.MariotHotelatJuhu.Atabout01.30a.m.
on28.09.2002,AltaftoldSalmanthathewasnotfeelingwellthereby
...100/
..100..
Judgment
hecalledAshokandAltafwouldleavethecarkeyswiththehotelvalet.
Valetthenbroughtthecartotheporch,butAshokhadnotreached.So
Salmanwaitedforhimbysittingonthedriver'sseatandputonair
conditioner.Patilwasstandingnexttothecar.AfterarrivalofAshok,
Salmansatonthefrontleftseat.Kamalcontinuedsittingonbackleft
sitandRavindraPatilsatbehindthedriver.
183.
ItispertinenttonotethatthefactaboutAltafandAshok
drivingthevehiclecameonrecordforthefirsttimeafterstatingby
Salmanu/s.313oftheCr.P.C.Tillthestatementrecordedu/s.313of
theCr.P.C.notasinglesuggestionwasgiventoanyoftheprosecution
witnessesexaminedsofar. Eveninthestatementu/s.313oftheCr.
P.C. Salman never disclosed the name of the witness to whom he
wantedtoexamine.ThentheaccusedexaminedAshokSingh(DW1)
indefence.DW1Ashokstatedinhisevidencethatheisworkingasa
driverwithSalimKhan,fatherofaccused,since1990.Therewereno
fixeddutyhoursofworkbutwheneverservicesarerequired,DW1was
called.AltafandDattaweretwodriversworkingintheyear2002.
184.
DW1Ashoknarratedinhisversionthaton27.09.2002he
wassleepinginhishouseandhereceivedphonecallfromAltafatabout
01.30 to 01.45 a.m. Altaf then informed DW1 that Altaf was not
feeling well and he left the keys with valet parking. DW1 after
changinghisclothes,wentbyrickshawtoJ.W.MariotfromAndheri.
HewenttoporchofthehotelandsawLandCruiservehiclestandingin
theporch.DW1sawbodyguardPatilstandingoutsidethevehicleand
hesawSalmansittingonthedriver'sseatandA.C.wason.DW1then
...101/
..101..
Judgment
satondriver'sseat.SalmanKhanwenttotheseatnexttothedriver's
seat.RavindraPatil,bodyguard,satbehindhiminthebackportionof
thecarandfourthpersonwasKamalKhansittingbehindSalmanKhan.
185.
DW1 Ashok then deposed that he took the vehicle on
LinkingRoad,onGonsalvesRoadandtookrightturnforgoingtoHill
Road.VehiclecameontheHillRoadandproceededatsomedistance
thenfrontlefttyreofthevehicleburst,therebyvehiclepulledtowards
theleftside.Steeringwheelbecamehardtoturnup.AccordingtoDW
1,hetriedtoapplythebreaks,butbythenthevehiclehadclimbedthe
stairsoftheLaundry.Thevehiclethenstopped.
186.
DW1AshokSinghfurtherdeposedthathegotdownfrom
thedriver'sside.Salmantriedtoopenthedoorattheleftside,butthe
leftdoorwasjammed. Therewerepeoplebeneaththecarwhowere
shouting.Salmanalsogotdownfromthecarfromdriver'sside.PW1
andSalmantriedtoliftthecartorescuethepeoplefoundbeneaththe
car,butcardidnotmove.SalmanalsotoldDW1toinformpolice.In
themeantimepublicgavepullandpushtoDW1andalsoRavindra
Patilwho gotdownfromthecar. DW1thenproceededtoBandra
PoliceStationbutitwastoldthatpolicehadalreadyleftthespot.DW
1narratedtheincidenttopolicestation.DW1wasaskedtositinthe
policestation. Atabout10.30amon28.9.2002Salmancametothe
police station and DW1 informed that police did not entertain his
complaint. Police then took Salman outside by arresting him and
Salmanreturnedtopolicestationatabout4.30pm.
...102/
187.
..102..
Judgment
DW1AshokSinghiscrossexaminedatlengthbyLd.SPP
ShriGharat.DW1statedthattheLandCruiserVehicleisamodelland
CruiserlaxisandengineisV8.Thevehiclehaspowersteering,power
brakes,powerwindows,ABSbrakesystemetc.Thesaidvehicleisalso
called as SUV (Sport utility vehicle). DW1 admitted that the said
vehicleisbiggerthanotherSportUtilityVehicle.ThetyresoftheLand
Cruiserwereradialandwerehavingalargewidthinsize. Thesaid
vehicleisastrongvehicleandalsorunsontheroadlikemuddyand
marshy places, on stones and uneven surface. The shock absorbing
systemoftheLandCruiserwasverygood. Therewasindicatorpanel
facilityprovidedinthevehicle.DW1alsoadmittedthatiftheengine
oil,coolantandbrakeoilarefounddecreasing,then the saidfactis
indicatedonthepanel.Healsoadmittedthatifanythingfoundwrong
handbrake,timingbrake,wronginthebrakes,thesaidfactisindicated
onthepanelindicator.
188.
DW1 Ashok also admitted that Salman Khan used to
providehelptotheneedypersonsincludingstaffmembers.DW1also
admittedthathewasdevotedtoSalmanKhan.
189.
DW1 Ashok also admitted that he was knowing if he
committedwrongthenhehastovisitpolicestation. DW1alsoknew
thatifthecaseisfiledthenwitnessesaretobedeposedintheCourt
andtheCourtthenpronouncetheverdict.DW1statedthathecameto
knowlateronthatonepersonlosthislifeandfourpersonswereinjured
intheaccident. DW1admittedthathecametoknowaboutthesaid
factafterfewhoursoftheincident.
...103/
190.
..103..
Judgment
IfreallyDW1Ashokwasdrivingthevehicleatthetimeof
accident, then after the accident, at that very moment DW1 would
knowthatonepersonhaslosthislifeandfourpersonswereinjuredin
theaccident.
191.
DW1Ashok also admittedthat he came to know inthe
police station that Salman Khan was arrested by police. DW1 also
cametoknowthatSalmanKhanwasprosecutedandchargesheetwas
filedandSalmanKhanisbeingtried.SalmanKhanwasreleasedonbail
onthesamedayandwasagainrearrestedandwasdetainedinjail.
192.
DW1AshokalsoadmittedthatheknowhowSalmanKhan
is busy and also about the time value of the Salman Khan being a
leadingactor.
193.
DW1Ashokalsoadmittedinthecrossexaminationthathe
feltbadthataccidentoccurredwhenhewasdrivingthe vehicleand
Salman hadto attendthe dates of hearingin the court. DW1also
admittedthatSalmanKhandidnottellhimtokeepmumandhewill
facetheprosecution.
194.
DW1AshokalsoadmittedthathewasawarethatSalman
khanhadengagedtheadvocatetodefendhim.DW1alsostatedthat
he felt that accident occurred when he was driving the vehicle, but
SalmanKhanhadtofaceconsequencesandalsohisvaluabletimewas
lost. DW1 also admitted that he never thought to seek help from
SalmanKhaninthepresentmatter.
...104/
195.
..104..
Judgment
QuestionswerealsoaskedbyLd.SPPtotheDW1Ashok
duringhiscrossexamination.DW1statedthathewasnotawarewhat
hehadtoseekanyhelpfromthelawyer.DW1statedthathedidnot
visitadvocateorseekanyhelpfromanyunderstandableperson.DW1
alsostatedthathewasalwaysthinkingthatwrongwasgoingonasDW
1committedtheaccidentbuthedidnotknowwhattodo.
196.
AquestionwasaskedtoDW1AshokthatsinceSeptember
2002tillrecordinghisevidenceasadefencewitness,canDW1assign
anyreasonastowhyDW1didnotcometotheCourtonhisownto
narrate the truth ? DW1 replied that, he was not having any
understandingnordiditstriketohimthathehastocomeintheCourt.
DW1furtherdeposedthatSalimKhantoldhimtogototheCourtand
totellthetruth.DW1alsostatedthathashascometothecourtonthe
sayofSalimKhan.
197.
DW1Ashokalsoadmittedthathewatchtelevisioninthe
houseandalsoreadnewspapersaboutSalmanKhan.
198.
Questionagainaskedto DW1Ashokwhetheryouhave
toldnews media thatwhateverwasgoingon was wrong? DW1

answeredthequestionIwasnothavingunderstandingandalsoIam
notawareaboutit,thereforeIdidnottellnewsmedia.Thenquestions
were asked during cross examination to the witness at to what
precautions driver should take. DW1 stated that he used to drive
vehicleasperthesituationontheroadandtraffic. Healsoadmitted
...105/
..105..
Judgment
that whenever he reaches near T Junction he has to release the

accelerator in order to lower the speed of the vehicle. While
approachingthejunction,DW1hadtoapplythebrakestoreducethe
speedwhiletakingtheturn.Ifthevehicleisinspeed,thenDW1have
toreleasetheacceleratortoreducethespeed. Further DW1hasto
look towards the right direction and also from the left side about
incomingvehiclesandafter verifyinghe have totake the rightturn.
DW1 stated that at that moment generally the vehicle would have
maintainthespeedatabout2030kmperhour.
199.
DW1 Ashok also admitted that the road till the spot of
incidentisatarroadandsmoothtodrivethecar. Thetyresofthe
vehiclewerestrong.Thetyremaygetburstifcomesincontactwiththe
pointedobjectorwithsharpedge.DW1statedthathedidnotreceive
anysignalonthepanelindicatorbeforetheincident.DW1thenasked
after arrival in J. W. Mariot, DW1 asked Salman whether to take
vehicletohishouse.Salmandidnottellhimthathewasinhurrytogo
someplace.AccordingtoDW1withinoneortwominuteshereached
nearthecarfromthegateandhewasnotattentivetoseewhetherany
personispassingfromnearhimthroughtheingateofthehotel.
200.
DW1Ashok alsostated thatthere wasasecuritycabin
nearthegateandtherewereentrygateandexitgatetothehotel.
201.
Though DW1Ashokwasnotattentivetoseeanyperson
passingfromnearhimthroughtheingateofthehotel,howeverifreally
hehadvisitedtheJ.W.MariotthenDW1couldhavenoticedbyPW12
...106/
..106..
Judgment
Kalpesh.DW1alsostatedthatintheporchareathedrivermaywait
for oneandtwominutesin a carandcan openthe doorif another
vehicledoesnotcome.
202.
Further DW1 Ashok Singh also stated in the cross
examination that in the incident he was hearing the shout from the
peoplebeneaththecar.Accordingtohimnobodywasfoundnearthe
fronttyreofthecarandunderthetyre. DW1wasnotpresentatat
timeofremovinginjuredfrombeneaththecar.Hewentawayfromthe
spotpriortoSalman.
203.
Further DW1 Ashok also stated that after the incident
peoplegavepullandpushtohimandtoRavindraPatilandpulland
pushwasnotgiventoKamalandSalmanKhan. Witnessvolunteers
thattherewerespeedbreakersonSt.AnderwsRoadandtherewasonly
onespeedbreakernearHollyFamilyHospital.
204.
DW1AshokalsoadmittedthatwhenSalmancametothe
policestationatabout10.30amatthattimemediapersonsandcrowd
werestandinginfrontofthepolicestation.DW1alsorepliedtothe
question asked by SPP Shri Gharat that he did not tell the media
personsormobstandinginfrontothepolicestationasheasinpolice
stationandalsohecannotsaysomethingagainstthepolice.
205.
DW1 Ashok also stated that he was not having
understandingorknowledgetotellmediaorpeoplethatpolicedidnot
listenhim.ATabout4.30pmwhenheleftthepolicestationandafter
...107/
..107..
Judgment
Salman Khan wasbailedouthewaswithSalman Khan. DW1also

replied to the question that there was no fear in his mind when he
joinedSalman Khan. AfterjoiningSalman Khan,DW1 andSalman
Khanleftthepolicestation. Mediapersonscamerunningtosnapthe
pictures. DW1 alsoreplied to the question that he was not having
understandingorhewasnotknowingtotellthemediapersonsabout
whathadhappened.
206.
DW1Ashokalsoadmittedthatpriortotakingthevehicle
inhand,heusedtocheckthevehicle. DW1alsovolunteersthathe
usedtocheckoil,water,tyreinordertoascertainwhetherthereisair
inthetyreornot.Afterswitchingtheengine,DW1usedtoseeonthe
panelwhetherthevehicleisokayinallrespects.Healsoadmittedthat
wheneverhestartstheLandCruiser,heusedtocheckpanelindicator.
He also admitted that Salman was helpful to police. There was no
reason for police to harass and trouble Salman. DW1 denied the
suggestion that the story put forth by the defence about driving the
vehicle first by Altaf and thereafter by DW1 is fabricated, falseand
afterthought.
207.
Itisfurthersubmittedbytheld.AdvocateMr.Shivadethat
theaccusedbeinganactorusedtobusyintheshootinganditwillbe
highlyimpossiblethattheaccusedcoulddriveinthenight.According
to Mr. Shivade, there were Ashok, Datta and Altaf were working as
driverswiththefamilytheaccused.Ld.SPPvehementlysubmittedthat
on the contrary, the lighter mood of the accused is admitted if the
acceptanceoffactthat,onthedateofaccident,theaccusedenjoyedat
...108/
..108..
Judgment
RainBarinitiallyandthereafterbeforestartingforhome,hadvisited
the J.W. Mariot Hotel. According to the ld. SPP, the defence has
miserably failed to establish the convincing defence that the tired
personafteraverybusyandhecticcontinueddayschedule,wouldkeep
latenightstoenjoyinRestaurantandHotels,thenonlythequestionas
tohewouldhavethemoodtodrivewouldarise.Ifindsubstanceinthe
submissionofld.SPPandtherefore,thesubmissionofMr.Shivadethat
itishighlyimprobablethattheaccusedwoulddrivethevehicleinthe
nightcannotbeaccepted.
208.
theaccusedhasexaminedDW1AshokSinghatthepropertime.After
closureofprosecutionevidence,thestagehascometorecordstatement
u/s.313oftheCr.P.C.SoaccordingtoMr.Shivade,itcannotbecalled
astwistinthecase. AccordingtoMr.Shivade,ifsupposethetrial
concludedintheMetropolitanMagistrateCourt,theninthatcourtalso
afterclosureoftheprosecutionevidence,defencewouldhaveexamined
thewitness.FurtheraccordingtoMr.Shivadeitisnotexpectedtotake
themikeinhandtoaddresstomediathattheincidenthadnottaken
place because of fault of the accused, but it was a pure accident.
Furthertheaccusedwasnotdrivingthevehicleandbecauseofthetyre
burst,theallegedincidenttookplaceandforthat,noonecanbeheldat
fault.
209.
Theld.SPPvehementlysubmittedthattheevidenceofDW
1Ashokisliabletobethrownawayasthreshold. Aftermorethana
decade,DW1cameforwardtostateinwhatmannertheaccidenttook
placeandtheaccusedwasnotatfault. AccordingtoMr.Gharat,ld.
...109/
..109..
Judgment
SPP,can suchevidence isprobable,appealable andagreeable tothe

consciousofaprudentman. AccordingtoMr.Gharat,conductofthe
witness is to be seen as this witness came in the Court on the
instructionsofSalimKhanandnothisownaccord. AccordingtoMr.
Gharat,thewitnesshasdeposedthatSalimKhantoldhimtotelltruth
andtherefore,hecametothecourt.AccordingtoMr.Gharat,whythe
truth was not disclosed since beginning. Further according to Mr.
Gharat,DW1isservingwiththefamilyoftheaccusedandthefamilyof
theaccusedisfullyaware thatDW1isthe culpritandthe accused,
innocentsonofthe family,inspite wasbeingarrestedtwice,keptin
custodyfordaysandthereaftermakingtripstothecourt,theservicesof
DW1wereacceptedandhecontinuedtoservethefamilyasthehonest
manandaccusedwassuffering,canitbeprobableandappealableto
theconsciousoftheprudentman.AccordingtoMr.Shivade,canitbe
acceptedthatMr.SalimKhan,fatheroftheaccused,waitedwithcalm
andquietmind,bearingandtoleratingbeforehiseyesthesufferingsto
whichhissonwasputbytheordinarydriverduringallthisperiodof12
years, till the turn of the defence witness came and the said culprit
driverkeptservingthefamilythroughoutentireperiodofmorethan12
years. Can accusedalsotolerate suchperson andpulleddownwith
him, who without any shame, continued to serve the accused
throughout all these years. According to Mr. Gharat, the thought
whichpromptedthefamilytosendthesaiddriverforevidence,onthe
date,whywasnotpromptedthroughouttheseyears.Eventhewitness
was having ample opportunity to approach the Advocate at least of
SalmanKhan,toapproachthepolice,ifnottothepolicethentothe
courtandifnottothecourt,thentomediawhowasfewfeetaway
...110/
..110..
Judgment
whenthewitnessclaimstohavemadehimtositonthebenchoutside
ofthepolicestationtill04.30p.m.from03.00a.m.aftertheincident.
Evenafteraccusedwasbailedout,thewitnesswaswithaccusedfaced
the camera of the media and press, but failed to declare that the
accused was innocent and he was the culprit and kept total silence
thereafterformorethan12yearsisnotacceptabletoanyprudentman
withlogicandthewitnesshasprovedthatheislyingonoath.Theld.
SPPsoughtprayerthatnoticebeissuedtohimforshowingreasonasto
whyDW1shouldnotbeprosecutedfortheoffenceofperjury.
210.
Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadealsoreliedonthereported
judgment State of Haryana v/s. Ram Singh [(2002) 2 Supreme

Court Cases 426. In this case, it is held that how the evidence of
defencewitnesscanbeappreciated.
19. Significantlyalldisclosures,discoveriesandeven
arrestshavebeenmadeinthepresenceofthreespecific
persons,namely,BudhRam,DholuRamandAtmaRam
no independent witness could be found in the
aforesaid context is it deliberate or is it sheer
coincidencethisiswheretherelevanceofthepassage
from Sarkar on Evidences comes on. The ingenuity
devisedbytheprosecutorknewnoboundscanitbe
attributedtobesheercoincidence?Withoutanyfurther
considerationofthematter,onethingcanbe,moreor
less with certain amount of conclusiveness be stated
that these at least create a doubt or suspicion as to
whetherthesamehavebeentailormadeornotandin
...111/
..111..
Judgment
theeventoftherebeingsuchadoubt,thebenefitmust
andoughttobetransposedtotheaccusedpersons.The
trialcourtaddresseditselfonscrutinyofevidenceand
came to a conclusion that the evidence available on
recordistrustworthybuttheHighCourtacquittedone
oftheaccusedpersonsonthebasisofsomediscrepancy
between the oral testimony and the documentary
evidence as noticed fully hereinbefore. The oral
testimonythusstandstaintedwithsuspicion.Ifthatbe
thecase,thenthereisnootherevidenceapartfromthe
omnipresent.BudhRamandDholuRam,whohowever
are totally interested witnesses. While it is true that
legitimacyofinterestedwitnessescannotbediscredited
inanywaynortermedtobeasuspectwitnessbutthe
evidence before being ascribed to be trustworthy or
beingcapableofcreatingconfidence,thecourthasto
considerthesameuponproperscrutiny. Inourview,
theHighCourtwaswhollyinerrorinnotconsidering
the evidence available on record in its proper
perspective.Theotheraspectofthematterisinregard
tothe defencecontentionthatManphoolwasmissing
fromthevillageforabout2/3daysandismurderedon
2111992itself. Thereisdefenceevidenceonrecord
byDW3RajaRamthatManphoolwasmurderedon21
11992. The High Court rejected the defence
contention by reason of the fact that it was not
suggestedtoBudhRamorDholuRamthatthemurder
...112/
..112..
Judgment
hadtakenplaceon211192itselfandDW3RajaRam
hadevencometoattendthecondolenceanditis by
reasonthereforeRajaRamsevidencewasnotaccepted.
Incidentally,beitnotedthattheevidencetenderedby
defence witnesses cannot always be termed to be a
taintedonethedefencewitnessesareentitledtoequal
treatmentandequalrespectasthatoftheprosecution.
The issue of credibility andthe trustworthiness ought
alsotobeattributedtothedefencewitnessesonapar
withthatoftheprosecution. Rejectionofthedefence
case on the basis of the evidence tendered by the
defencewitnesshasbeeneffectedrathercasuallybythe
HighCourt. Suggestion wastheretothe prosecution
witnesses, in particular PW10 Dholu Ram that his
fatherManphoolwasmissingforabout2/3daysprior
to the day of the occurrence itself what more is
expectedofthedefencecase:adoubtoracertainty
jurisprudentiallyadoubtwouldbeenough:whensuch
a suggestions has been made the prosecution has to
bringonrecordtheavailabilityofthedeceasedduring
those 2/3 days with some independent evidence.
Rejectionofthedefencecaseonlybyreasonthereofis
fartoostrictandrigidarequirementforthedefenceto
meetitistheprosecutorsdutytoprovebeyondall
reasonable doubts and not the defence to prove its
innocencethisitselfisacircumstance,whichcannot
butbetermedtobesuspiciousinnature.
...113/
211.
..113..
Judgment
Ongoingthroughtheabovecitedcaselaw,Ifindthatitis
ratherhelpfultothecaseoftheprosecution. TheHon'bleHighCourt
rejected the contention byfactthatitwasnotsuggestedGudram or
Joluramthatmurderhastakenplaceon21.01.1992itselfandDW3
Rajaramhadevencometocondolenceanditisbyreasontherefore,
Rajaram'sevidencewasnotaccepted.TheHon'bleApexCourtobserved
suggestion was there to prosecution witness, in particular PW10
GholuramhisfatherManphoolwasmissingforabout2/3dayspriorto
dayofoccurrenceitself.Whatmoreisexpectedofthedefencecase,a
doubtoracertainty,juriesprudentiallythedoubtwouldbeenough.
whensuchasuggestionhasbeenmadetheprosecutionhastobringon
recordtheavailabilityofthedeceasedduringthose2/3dayswithsome
independentevidence.
212.
In our case in hand, no suggestion was given to the
complainantPatilthatAltafwasdrivingthevehiclefromthehouseof
AccuseduptoRainBarandthereaftertoJ.W.Mariot.Nosuggestionwas
given to complainant Patil that Altaf felt giddiness and he informed
AshokinthenighttocometoJ.W.MariottotakeSalmantohishouse.
NosuggestionwasgiventocomplainantPatilthatAshokthendrovethe
vehicleandwhiledrivingthevehiclebyAshok,thetyreburst,thereby
Ashok could not control the vehicle resulting in the incident. No
suggestion was given to the complainant Patil that it was a pure
accidentandAshokwasnotatfault.
...114/
213.
..114..
Judgment
Further it is important to note here that the injured
witnesseswhowereexaminedbeforeme,alsonowheresuggestedby
defence during crossexamination that Ashok was driving the vehicle
andasthetyrewasburstthevehiclecouldnotbecontrolledresultingin
incident. NosuggestionwasgiventotheindependentwitnessPW7
Francis that Ashok was driving the vehicle and the accident was
occurredduetoburstingofthetyre.
214.
Inthiscase,PW26KadamrecordedFIR. PW26Kadam
andInvestigatingOfficerPW27Shengalwereexaminedbeforeme.No
suggestionwasgiventoPW26RajendraKadamthataccusedwasnot
drivingthevehicle.ItwasneversuggestedtoPW26Kadamthatatthe
time of incident, DW1 Ashok was driving the vehicle. It was not
suggestedtoPW26Kadamthatfrontleftsidetyrewasburstresulting
the accident. It was never suggested to PW26 Kadam that initially
AltafwasdrivingthevehiclefromthehouseofSalmanuptoJ.W.Mariot
andashefeltgiddiness,hecalledAshoktoJ.W.Mariot.
215.
Itisalsoimportanttomentionthatthedefencealsonever
suggestedtotheInvestigatingOfficerthatinitiallyAltafwasdrivingthe
vehiclefromthehouseofaccuseduptoJ.W.MariotHotelonthedayof
incident. ThereafterAltafcalledAshoktoJ.W.MriotHotelashefelt
giddiness.NosuggestionwasgiventoInvestigatingOfficerPW27that
Ashokdrivingthe vehicle. Nosuggestion wasgivento Investigating
Officerthatleftfronttyrewasburst. Nosuggestionwasgiventothe
InvestigatingOfficerthataccusedwasnotdrivingthevehicle.
...115/
216.
..115..
Judgment
Soitappearsthatabsolutelydefenceneverputtheircaseto
thecomplainantPatilorthereaftertoallthewitnessesexaminedbefore
me.WhentheaccusedknewthataccidentoccurredwhenAshokwas
drivingthevehicle,thenitoughthavebeenbroughtonrecordbygiving
suggestion or by putting the case to the prosecution witnesses.
Surprisingly,tillthestatementofaccusedu/s.313isrecorded,forthe
firsttime,afteraperiodof13years,thefactisbroughtonrecordbythe
defencethatthevehiclewasinfactdrivenonthedayofincidentby
DW1Ashok.
217.
It is important to note here that u/s.313 Salman Khan
statedthathewantstoexaminewitnessinhisdefence,buthedidnot
specify on what ground the witnesses are to be examined and also
abouthisname.Soafteraperiodof13years,anattemptwasmadeby
defence to demonstrate that the vehicle in fact was driven by DW1
Ashok.Thedefencereliedonthecaseof(2002)2SCC426.Ithelpsto
theprosecution.Havingregardtothepara19ofthesaidjudgment,in
ourcasealso,theaccusedneverputtheircase,rathernevermadeany
specificsuggestionstotheprosecutionwitnessesthatearlierAltafwas
drivingthevehicle,thereafterAshokwasdrivingthevehicleandthere
wastyreburst.
218.
In our case, where the prosecution case is partially
supported by the statement of the accused i.e. accident admitted to

have occurred, people were injured and on top of it, the cross
examination of the prosecution witnesses does not establish any
consistentlineofthedefence.
...116/
219.
..116..
Judgment
So having regard to the defence evidence, I am of the
opinionthatthesaidwitnessDW1appearstobeagotupwitnessthat
tooafteraperiodof13years.IthasbroughtonrecordthatAshokwas
drivingthevehicle.Suchdefenceevidencecannotbeacceptedasitis
not probable, appealable and agreeable to the conscious of common
prudentman,hence,itisliabletobediscardedstraightway.
220.
It is further argued by ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade that
accordingtoDW1Ashok,thecarwastakenonLinkingRoad,thenon
GonsalvesRoadandtooktherightturnforgoingtoHillRoad. The
vehicle came on the Hill Road and the vehicle proceeded at some
distanceatHillRoad,whenfrontlefttyreofthevehiclewasburst.So
accordingtodefence,thevehiclealsotravelledonGonsalvesRoad.Itis
pertinent to note that as per the complaint lodged by Ravindra
HimmatraoPatil,atthetimeoftheincident,thevehiclewascomingby
AndrewsRoadandwhileturningtowardsrightsideofHillRoad,the
accusedcouldnotcontrolthevehicleandwenttowardstheAmerican
Express shop. It is pertinent to note that there is word mentioned
GonsalvesRoad,whichisalsoscratchedandalsoinitialwasmadenear
scratchingandtheSt.AndrewsRoadmentioned.Therewasnocross
examination to the complainant Patil that the vehicle came by
GonsalvesRoad.EvennosuggestionwasgiventoInvestigatingOfficer
PW27 Shengal as well as PW26 Kadam who recorded FIR about
GonsalvesRoad. TheevidenceofDW1isdiscardedfromtakinginto
consideration and therefore, the argument advanced by ld. Advocate
Mr.ShivadethatDW1Ashokwasdrivingthevehicleandthevehicle
...117/
..117..
Judgment
wastravelledonGonsalvesRoadcannotbeaccepted.Themapisalso
broughtonrecordbyld.Advocateduringthecourseofargument. As
theevidenceofDW1Ashokisrejectedfromtakingintoconsideration,
themapshowingthesituationoftheroadbywhichDW1Ashokdrove
thevehicleisalsoofnouse.
221.
OnemorecircumstanceisalsonoticedbymewhenIhave
gonethroughtheRecordandProceedingofthiscase.IntheCourtof
Metropolitan Magistrate an application Exh.26 is filed by the
prosecution on 14.03.2011 that charge u/.s.304II of IPC be framed
againstthe accused andthe case may be committed tothe Courtof
Sessions.TheaccusedsubmittedadetailedreplyExh.28onoathtothe
application for prosecution. The said reply is notarized filed on
31.03.2011. During the course of argument, attention of the ld.
Advocateforthedefeneisdrawntopara2ofthereply.Para(2)ofthe
replyisreproducedasunder:
2.
TheAccusedsubmitsthatitisregrettablethatan
accidenthastakenplaceresultinginthedeathofone
person. Theallegedincidenthadtakenplaceatmid
night,whenitwasextremelydarkandmanypeoplehad
gatheredatthesceneoftheaccident.Primafacie,itis
amply clear that there was absence of any motive or
intentiontokillsomeone. Theactasallegedisnotan
act of culpable homicide but an unfortunate incident,
beyond the control of the accused, such as an act of
God.
...118/
222.
..118..
Judgment
The ld. Advocate for the defence contended that the
unfortunate incident beyond the control of the accused means the

accusedwasnotdrivingthevehicle.Itispertinenttonotethatinreply
nowhereitismentionedthatAshokwasdrivingthevehicle.According
toMr.Shivade, after closure of prosecution evidence,the accused is
entitled to lead defence evidence. There is no dispute in the said
proposition.However,thespecificallypointeddefencethatAshokwas
drivingthevehicleandtherewasatyreburstwasneverputtoRavindra
Patilwhowasadmittedlypresentinthecar.WhenthisCourtexamined
27 witnesses, the said specifically pointed defence about driving the
vehiclebyAshokwasalsonotputtotheindependentwitnesses,PW26
whorecordedFIRofRavindraPatilandalsototheInvestigatingOfficer
PW27Shengal.
223.
Theld.Advocatefortheaccusedalsoreliedonthereported
judgment in case of Des Raj v/s. The State of Punjab [1971(3)

SupremeCourtCases235].
224.
In this case, the appellant was charged u/s.406 of the
Indian Penal Code for having committed criminal breach of trust of

Rs.4,000/entrustedtohim.ItappearsthatBangaUrbanCooperative
ThriftandCreditSociety,Banga,passedaresolutiontoraisealoanof
Rs.4,000/fromNawanwsherCentralCooperativeBank,Banga. The
societyauthorizedappellant,amemberofsocietytoreceiveRs.4,000/
from the bank on the basis of promissory note executed by some
membersonbehalfofthesociety. Accordingtothe Managerofthe
Bank, security of the society Mehngaram had accompanied the
...119/
..119..
Judgment
appellantwhenpaymentwasmadetohiminthebankandalsoattested
thesignaturesofthepersonsonthemanagementofthecooperative
society. The resolution does not contain any instruction as to what
appellanthadtodowiththemoney,butaccordingtothePresidentof
thesociety,theappellanthadtopaymoneytotheCashierBalvirSingh
whowouldmaketheentryintheaccounts.BalvirSinghunfortunately
is dead. Notice was issued to the appellant that he had withdrawn
amountofRs.4,000/buttheamountsoreceivednotenteredinthe
bookofthesociety.Replywasgivenbytheappellantthatamountwas
giventoMengaram,Secretaryofthesocietyandhedidnotknowasto
whether the entry was taken into the account. According to the
appellantmoneywaspaidtotheSecretaryMengaraminthepresenceof
Sarwanram, Piara Singh and Satlam Singh at the retail shop of
Sarwanram. The appellant examined these three witnesses in his
defence.DW1Sarwanramstatedthatappellantpaidthemoneyinhis
presencetoMengaram,buthedidapproachtothepoliceandtoldthem
thatthepaymenthadbeenmadeinhispresence,buthedidnotmake
anywrittenapplicationtoanybody.
225.
DW2PiaraSinghalsodeposedthatRs.4,000/waspaidto
theSecretarybytheappellant,butnoquestionwasputtohim.DW3
Satnam Singh also supported the defence story. The ld. Magistrate
disbelieved the defence witnesses on the ground that they had not
represented at the earliest to any higher authorities against false
implicationoftheappellant.
9.
This Court ordinarily does not go into the
questionoffactsandappreciatetheevidencebutinthis
...120/
..120..
Judgment
caseboththeTrialCourtandthelearnedSessionsJudge
have,relyingon conjecturesandsurmises,disbelieved
theevidenceofthedefencewitnesses.Inthefirstplace,
theydidnotgivedueweighttothefactthatMeghna
Ram had, in fact, accompanied the appellant to the
Bank.Heknewabouttheresolutionandthereceiptof
the money. If the money had not been paid, it is
surprisingthatnobodycame toknowaboutittill the
auditoftheaccountsoftheSociety.Thissumhadbeen
borrowed by the Society and the money had to be
utilised for nonagricultural purposes. It seems to us
thatthedefenceversioncannotbedisbelievedmerely
becauseifthemoneyhadnotbeenpaid,asstatedbythe
appellant, it would have been expected that the non
payment would be known to the President and the
Cashiermuchsooner.Inourviewtheonlyfoolishthing
theappellantdidwaswhathedeliveredthemoneyand
didnottakethereceiptfromMeghnaRam. Asstated
abovetheevidenceofthedefencewitnesseshasbeen
disbelievedonpureconjecturesandsurmises. Itisnot
common,asfarasweareaware,thatthepersonswho
arewitnessestoatransactiongoaboutcomplainingto
the higher authorities if the transaction is impugned.
We cannot allow a person to be convicted on mere
suspicionandweareaccordinglyconstrainedtoallow
theappeal.
...121/
226.
..121..
Judgment
Relying on the said authority, Mr. Shivade vehemently
submittedthatitisarguedbyld.SPPthatasaccusedorDW1didnot
makeanycomplainttohigherauthoritiesthatitwasAshokwhowas
drivingthevehicle,inferencecannotbedrawnevenifnotmentioning
before media or not lodging any complaint, can the evidence of the
defencewitnessbedisbelievedonpureconjuncturesandsurmises.
227.
Itispertinenttonotethatinourcase,sincebeginningthe
accusedneverputuphisdefencedemonstratingthatthevehiclewas
driven byDW1Ashok andthe accusedwas notdrivingthe vehicle.
Eventheaccusednowheredemonstratedbysuggestingthe witnesses
thatAltafwasdrivingthevehicleinitially. Ifindthatthefactsofthe
citedcasearenotapplicabletothecaseinhand.
228.
SoafteranalyzingtheevidenceofcomplainantPatil,Iam
oftheopinionthatthereisnoreasonforthecomplainanttostatefalse
againsttheaccused.Thegroundputforthbytheaccusedthatbecause
ofpressureofmedia,theaccusedisfalselyimplicateddoesnotappeal
totheconsciousoftheprudentman.TheevidenceofDW1isrejected
bymefromconsideration. He isgotup witness. Admittedly,itis
nobody'scasethatcomplainantPatilorKamalKhandrovethevehicle
onthedayofincident.Soonlyirresistibleinferencecanbedrawnthat
itistheaccusedonlywhodrovethevehicleatthetimeoftheincident.
229.
It is pertinent to note that the injured witnesses also
deposedthattheaccusedgotdownfromtherightsideofthecari.e.
fromthedriver'sside. Itisestablishedthattheaccused,KamalKhan
...122/
..122..
Judgment
andcomplainantPatilwereonlyinthecar.Theaccusedadmittedthe
incident and also admitted that the people were injured, but Ashok
Singhwasdrivingthevehicle. Thesaidevidenceisalreadydiscarded
fromtakingintoconsideration.
230.
In this case, the important witness is PW7 Francis
Fernandes. Theaccusedalsosubmittedthefurtherwrittenstatement
u/s.313oftheCr.P.C.(Exh.171A).Inpara11ofthewrittenstatement
itismentionedbytheaccusedthatFrancisaskedaccusedtoleavethe
spotasthecrowdwasgettingviolentandtheyhadbeatenRavindra
PatilandAshok. Theaccusedthenlefttheplacebyacarstoppedby
Francis'swife.Kamalhadalreadygoneaway.
231.
ItispertinenttonotethattheevidenceofPW7Francisis
recorded at Exh.46. He never stated in examinationinchief about

presence of Ashok on the spot. He also never stated that people
assaulted Patil and Ashok. It was never suggested to PW7 Francis
duringhiscrossexaminationthatAshokwasalsopresentonthespot
andthepeoplefromthemobalsoassaultedcomplainantRavindraPatil
and Ashok. So the defence taken by the accused appears to be
contradictory.
232.
It is further contended by ld. Advocate Mr.Shivade that
complaintofRavindraPatilcannotbetreatedasFIRasthesameisnot
first in point of time and thus, cannot be used for corroboration.
AccordingtoMr.Shivade,theFIRwasregisteredatabout05.45a.m.
i.e.3hoursoftheincident.FurtheritissubmittedthatVHSregisteris
...123/
..123..
Judgment
notproducedbytheprosecutiontoshowthatwhetherPatilhadphoned
the Control Room or Ashok Singh had phoned the Control Room.
AccordingtoMr.Shivade,collectionofinformationinrespectofthe
callscouldhavethrownsomelighti.e.thenameofthecallerandthe
detailsoftheinformationcommunicatedbythecaller.Thisinformation
dependinguponitsnaturecouldhavebeentreatedasFirstInformation
Report. FurtheraccordingtoMr.Shivade,complainantPatildidnot
disclosetheincidenttopolicepriortofilingofcomplaint.
233.
It is pertinent to note that after the accident, the
complainant Patil remained on the spot till arrival of Kadam. PSI

Kadam rushed to the spot, drawn panchanama, made inquiry with
complainantandthencomplaintofPatilwasrecordedinpolicestation.
Ifindthatnoirregularityiscommitted. Itisthedutyofthepoliceto
rushtothespotfirstinordertorenderhelptothevictimorinjuredin
the incident. In this regard, the reliance is placed on the reported
judgmentoftheHon'bleApexCourtincaseof AnimireddyVenkata
Ramanaandothers V/s.PublicProsecutor,HighCourtof Andhra
Pradesh[(2008)5SupremeCourtCases368] whereinitisheldas
under:
A.
CriminalProcedureCode,1973Ss.154,156&157
and 162 FIRNeed not precede the information

regardingcommissionofcognizableoffencereceivedbythe
officerinchargeofapolicestationwhichrequiredhimto
reachtheplaceofoccurrenceasearlyaspossible.
B.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973S.154FIR
GeneraldiaryHeld,generaldiarycontainingnotingofa
...124/
..124..
Judgment
reportregardingcognizableoffence,cannotbetreatedas
FIR.
C.
CriminalProcedureCode,1973Ss.154and162
FIR Telephonic information received by IO Later FIR

recordedHeld,telephonicinformationnotinthenature
ofFIR.
11.
The dead body of the deceased was brought down
fromthebusandtakentothehouse.Theconductorofthe
bussentaninformationtotheDepotManageroftheState
Road Transport Corporation at Tuni. The investigating
officer was also informed. A report to that effect might
havebeennotedinthegeneraldiarybutthesamecould
nothavebeentreatedtobeanFIR.Whenaninformationis
receivedbyanofficerinchargeofapolicestation,hein
termsoftheprovisionsoftheCodewasexpectedtoreach
the place of occurrence as early as possible. It was not
necessaryforhimtotakethatsteponlyonthebasisofa
firstinformationreport.Aninformationreceivedinregard
tocommissionofacognizableoffenceisnotrequiredtobe
precededbyafirstinformationreport.DutyoftheStateto
protectthelifeofaninjuredasalsoanendeavouronthe
partoftheresponsiblepoliceofficertoreachtheplaceof
occurrenceinasituationofthisnatureishisimplicitduty
andresponsibility. Ifsomeincidenthadtakenplaceina
bus,theofficersofRoadTransportCorporationalsocould
notignorethesame.Theyreachedtheplaceofoccurrence
in another bus at about 1 a.m. The deceased and the
...125/
..125..
Judgment
injuredwereonlythenshiftedtoTuniHospital.
12.
A first information report was recorded at about 3
oclock in the night. In the aforementioned situation, it

cannot be said that the information received by the
investigatingofficeronthetelephonewasofsuchanature
andcontainedsuchdetailswhichwouldamounttoafirst
informationreportsoastoattracttheprovisionsofSection
162oftheCode.
234.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade relied on the case of Dr. V.
RugminiV/s.StateofKerala&Ors.(1987Cri.L.J.200)whereinitis
heldasunder:
When information regarding a cognizable offence is
furnishedtothepolicethatinformationwillberegarded
astheFIRandallenquiriesheldbythepolicesubsequent
theretowouldbetreatedasinvestigation,eventhough
theformalregistrationoftheFIRtakesplaceonlylater.
Theotherpropositionemergingfromthosedecisionsis
thatthestatementsmadebywitnessestothepoliceprior
totheformalregistrationoftheFIRwillfallwithinthe
scopeofS.162oftheCode.
235.
Considering the facts and circumstances and considering
ratiointhejudgment(2008)5SupremeCourtCases368,Ifindthat
complaintofPatilistheFIR(Exh.P1)whichisprovedinaccordance
withlaw. Hence,submissionofld.AdvocateMr.Shivadecannotbe
accepted.
...126/
236.
..126..
Judgment
Furtherld.AdvocateMr.Shivadesubmittedthatthereport
waslodgedatbelatedstage.Accordingtohim,on29.09.2002,PW19
Keskar,RTOInspector,demandedthedocumentfromthepolice.Police
told him that the papers were not ready. Copy of the FIR was not
available. The documents were being prepared. According to Mr.
Shivade,copyoftheFIRwasnotsenttotheMagistratewithintime.
AccordingtoPW27Shengal,InvestigatingOfficer,thecopyoftheFIR
wassentwithinthetime.Accordingtold.AdvocateMr.Shivade,PW
27Shengal, attemptedto give vague excuse thatitwas holiday and
therefore,theFIRcouldnothavebeensent.Ld.AdvocateMr.Shivade
placedrelianceonthecaseofBirSinghandothersV/s.StateofUttar
Pradesh[(1977)4SCC420]whereinitisheldasunder:
In these circumstances we place no reliance on the
evidence of this witness. The High Court indulged in
anotherconjecturethattheF.I.R.musthavebeensentto
the P. P. and to the Elaqa Magistrate. This was not
howeveramatterofwhichjudicialnoticecouldbetaken
but had to be proved like any other fact. There was
absolutelynoevidenceledbytheprosecutiontoshow
whentheF.I.R.wassenttotheElaqaMagistrateorto
theP.Psofficeandintheabsenceofanyevidenceon
thispointtheHighCourtwasnotjustifiedindrawingan
inference in order to demolish the positive and
categorical statement of PW 5 Umesh Chandra Verma
theInvestigatingOfficer.
...127/
237.
..127..
Judgment
Itispertinenttonotethat28.9.2002wasafourthSaturday
and 29.9.2002 was a Sunday. Though there is no evidence on the

recordtoshowthatwhenthecopyofFIRwassenttotheMagistrate,I
amoftheopinionthat,thatwouldnothamperthecaseofprosecution
astherewasnodelaytolodgethecomplaintbyPatil.
238.
Further ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade relied on the case of
MarudanalAagusti V/s. StateofKerala[(1980)4SCC425:AIR

1980SC638]whereinitisheldasunder:
CriminalProcedureCode,1973Section154FIR
Once FIR is held to be fabricated or brought into
existence long after the occurrence, the entire
prosecution case would collapseOmission tomention
namesofeyewitnessesinFIRgivingminutedetails,and
unexplaineddelayindespatchoftheFIRtomagistrate
besides other infirmities, held, would throw serious
doubtonprosecutioncase.
239.
Further ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade relied on the case of
GaneshBhavanPatel&anr. V/s. StateofMaharashtra[(1978)4

SCC371]whereinitisheldasunder:
Delay in recording F.I.R., on facts, held fatal to the
prosecutioncase.
240.
From the evidence it transpires that after drawing
panchanama,immediatelyFIRwaslodgedbycomplainantPatil.Hence,
itcannotbesaidthatFIRislodgedatbelatedstage. Lookingtothe
...128/
..128..
Judgment
evidence,theFIRwaslodgedpromptlyafterdrawingthepanchanama.
Hence, I find no substance in the submission of ld. Advocate Mr.
Shivade.ThereisnoreasonforthepolicetolodgetheFIRatbelated
stageagainsttheaccused.Inviewoftheseriousnessoftheincident,the
FIRwaslodgedpromptlybyRavindraPatilwhoremainedonthespot
aftertheincidenttillarrivalofpoliceandalsoshownthespottothe
police.
241.
Mostimportantandvitalaspectofthecaseis, whowas
drivingthevehicleatthetimeoftheaccident.Consideringtheabove
evidence,Iconclude that,itwastheaccusedSalmanKhanwhowas
drivingthevehicleatthetimeoftheaccident.Evidenceofcomplainant
Patil, PW3, PW4, PW11 corroborate with each other on material
particulars. PW2, PW3 & PW11 injured in the evidence.
ComplainantPatilisanaturalwitnesswhowaspresentatatimeofthe
incident.Itisestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubtbytheprosecution
thataccusedwasdrivingthevehicle.DefenceoftheaccusedthatDW1
Ashokwasdrivingthevehiclecannotbeaccepted. Theprosecution
alsoallegedthataccusedwasunderinfluenceofliquorandalsowithout
licence and drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. I will
discussthesaidaspectattheappropriatestageinmyjudgment.
D)
242.
Theoryoftyrebursting:
The accused also raised a defence that the accident
occurredbecauseofthefrontlefttyreburst,therebythecarwaspulled
totheleftside,DW1Ashoktriedtoapplythebrakeandhetriedto
control the car, but by then the car was climbed on the stairs of
...129/
..129..
Judgment
AmericanExpressLaundryandhittheshutterandstopped.Therewas
nofootpathoutsidetheAmericanExpressLaundryatthattime.
243.
It is pertinent to note that after the incident and after
drawingpanchanama,thecarwasremovedfromthespotwiththeaid
ofcraneandbroughtinfrontofBandraPoliceStation.PW19Rajendra
SadashivKeskaristheR.T.O.Inspectorwhoinspectedthesaidvehicle.
Admittedly,therewasnomechanicaldefectnoticedinthecar.Thesaid
factisalsoadmittedbythedefenceduringthecourseofargument.The
ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade heavily criticized the evidence of Pw19
Rajendra Keskar on the ground that the said witness has repeatedly
given contradictory answers during course of crossexamination,
knowingthatoneoftheanswerswasfalse.AccordingtoMr.Shivade,
thesaidwitnesshasnoregardtothetruthandhasmoldedhisdefence
to suit false case of the prosecution. According to Mr. Shivade, the
prosecution alsocriticized the said expert and also demanded action
against him. Ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade relied on the case of
AbinashchandraSarkar V/s. Emperor(ILR65Cal18) whereinitis
heldasunder:
The Crown has suggested, through not in so many
words,thatweoughttolookwithsuspicionuponthe
evidenceofthesewitnesses,becausetheybelongedtoa
faction in the company which was not favourably
disposedtowardsN.C.Chaudhuri.Amoreunusualand
a more impossible suggestion, I have never heard
advanced.ThesearewitnessesproducedbytheCrown
andputforwardaswitnessesoftruthinsupportofthe
...130/
..130..
Judgment
casefortheprosecution.Ithasnotbeensuggestedthat
theyturnedhostile,norduringthewholetrialwerethey
treated as hostile witnesses, nor has any one openly
suggested that they were not truthful witnesses. The
prosecutioncannotbepermittedtoblowhotandcoldas
bestitsuitsthem,Ifthesewerenottruthfulwitnesses,
theyoughtnevertohavebeencalledbytheprosecution
andsorecommendedtothecourtaswitnessesoftruth.
Thereisnoreasonwhateverforpreferringtheevidence
ofN.C.Chaudhuritotheirs,infactthecaseasawhole
leads me rather to regard his evidence with suspicion
thanotherwise.
244.
Further it is contended by Mr. Shivade that the witness
RajendraKeskar has notused the proforma prescribed bythe Motor

Vehicle Act. This renders his report incomplete and bad in law.
AccordingtoMr.Shivade,newproformarequirestobeinspectedthe
siteaswellastheconditionofthetyresandtheroadatthetimeof
accident,whichthewitnessdidnotdo.
245.
Furtheritiscontendedthatthestorygivenbythewitness
abouttestdriveofthevehicleisimprobable.FurtheraccordingtoMr.
Shivade,PW19Keskarinhisexaminationinchiefchangedthestoryof
deflationafrontlefttyreandsubstitutedanewstoryofhavinglessair
intheleftfrontwheel.AccordingtoMr.Shivade,thisimprovementis
tobecovereduptheobvious,nonperformanceofatestdrivebythis
witness. AccordingtoMr.Shivade,PW26Kadamadmittedthatthe
...131/
..131..
Judgment
tyrewasburstandtherimwasexposed.AccordingtoMr.Shivade,it
wouldbeanimpossibletasktotakeatestdrive.Hence,itiscontended
byMr.Shivadethatiftheprosecutionintroducedastoryoflessair,and
givesupastoryofdeflationoftyre,thenthereisnoreasonwhythe
courtshouldnotacceptthestoryputforthbythedefencei.e.bursting
ofthetyre.
246.
FurtheritiscontendedbyMr.Shivade,thatthebursttyre
wasneversenttotheForensicLaboratoryoranytyreexperttofindout
theimpactwasinternalorexternal(fromwithin). AccordingtoMr.
Shivade,theld.Advocate,theconditionoftheedgesofthebursttyre
couldhavethrownsomelightastowhethermarginsoftheburstare
avertedorinvertedjustlikeentryandexistwoundofabullet.Further
according to Mr. Shivade, PW19 Keskar admitted that if a pointed
stonecomesincontactwithtyre,itcanbeburstandcarwillpulltothe
side of the tyre. Further in that event, steering will become hard.
According to Mr. Shivade, all these admissions clearly support the
defenceoftheaccused.FurtheritisarguedbyMr.Shivadethatsudden
tyreburstandrestrictedmovementsofsteeringwilldefinitelyresultin
tothelossofcontrolandaccident.
247.
Theld.SPPMr.Gharatvehementlysubmittedthatthecar
involvedintheaccidentwassturdyandtoughvehicleandhadradial
andtubelesstyres.Thevehiclecanbedrivenifonetyreispunctured,
asdeposedbythewitness. AccordingtoSPPMr.Gharat,theaccused
couldnotcontrolthevehicleonturningasthevehiclewasinspeedand
thenwentonthefootpathandcausedinjuriestothepoorbakerypeople
...132/
..132..
Judgment
and also caused injuries to the poor bakery people sleeping on the
platformandclimbedthestairofAmericanExpressanddashedagainst
theshutter.
248.
PW19 Rajendra Keskar has deposed that he joined as a
MotorVehicleInspectorin1999inR.T.O.Department.On29.09.2002
at about 09.30 a.m. he had inspected the vehicle involved in the
accidentstandinginfrontofBandraPoliceStation. Heinspectedthe
vehiclefromallanglesandexternallynoticedthedamagecausedtothe
leftsidefender,leftheadlightwasbrokenandthefrontbumperwas
missing,noticedscratchesontheleftsideofwieldshieldglass,right
sideglasswasbroken.Healsonoticedlessinfrontlefttyre,hechecked
theoil,coolant,checkedmechanicalleakage,electricalconnectionsand
noticedalltobeintact.
249.
FurthertheevidenceofPw19Keskarrevealsthathetried
tostartenginebyinsertingthekeyandenginestartedafterinserting
thekey.
250.
PW19alsodidnotnoticeanydefectin thehandbreak,
hydrolicpowersteering. Thebrakeswerefoundintactinorder. He
didnotnotice
251.
PW19 Keskar took the test drive by driving the vehicle
aboutkm. Hepreparedthereport(Exh.84). AccordingtoPW19,

thevehiclewasfoundintheorder. Thetyresofthevehiclewerein
goodcondition.Thesensorsofthecarwerenotshowingthatthetyres
wereinbadconditionorwhethertherewasanyleakageinengine.
...133/
252.
..133..
Judgment
PW19Keskaralsostatedthatincaseofaminorpuncture,
orincaseofanyimpact,theremaybechancesofdecreasingtheairin
the tyre. He also stated that in case of hydrolicpower steeringthe
vehicle would not go to left or right after applying the brake
immediately, however, in case of less air in tyre, the vehicle would
divertlittlebittotheleftside. Ifadriverturnedthevehicletowards
right side, it would turn towards right side in the case where there
wouldbelessairexistinginthetyre.
253.
PW19Keskaralsoadmittedthathewashavingexperience
of4yearsinexaminingthevehicles.
254.
PW19 Keskar has gone through grueling cross
examination. Headmittedthatthereareprovisionsmentionedinthe
MotorVehiclesActandtheRulesregardingthevehiclesinvolvedinthe
accident. Healsoadmittedthattheparticularproformainrespectof
the accidental case is prescribed in the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles
Rule,1989,buthedidnotutilizethesaidproforma.
255.
It is pertinent to note that PW19 stated in cross
examinationthathevisitedthespotafter15daysoftheincidentatthe
time of going near the site of the incident. He did not prepare a
documentmentionedinproformaabouthisvisittothespot.According
toPW19,hehadseenthespotbypassingnearthespotoftheincident,
likeothers.ItappearsthatPW19hadseenthespotwhilegoingalong
withhisfriendand23secondsrequiredtoseethespot. Itishighly
improbablethatonecanseethespotwithin23seconds.
...134/
256.
..134..
Judgment
It is pertinent to note that PW19 had also undergone
trainingin Research Institute,Ahmednagar,for a periodof one day.

ThevehiclewasTataIndicaonwhichtrainingwasgiven.PW19stated
thatactualtrainingofimportedcarswasnotgiventohim.Thevehicle
MH01DA32wasanimportedcar. HealsoexaminedLandCruiser
vehicle for the first time and till the date of evidence, he did not
examineanyLandCruiservehicle.ThesaidvehiclecomesunderSport
UtilityVehicle.Healsoadmittedthatasperproformaintheyear1994,
the proforma is required to be prepared regarding inspection of the
vehicle.Healsoadmittedthathedidnotvisitthespotoftheincident,
butagainhestatedthathevisitedthespotafter15daysoftheincident
atthetimeofgoingnearthesiteoftheaccident.Theld.AdvocateMr.
Shivadevehementlysubmittedthattheapproachofthewitnesstohis
workis required tobe seen. Accordingto Mr.Shivade,the witness
oughttohavevisitedtheplaceofincidentbeforemakinginspectionof
thevehicle.
257.
FurtheraccordingtoMr.Shivade,PW19Keskarseenthe
spotwithin23seconds.Furtherthewitnessstatedthatheinspected
thevehicleprobablyonSaturday. Furtheraccordingtohim,recordis
preparedregardinginspectionofthevehicleintheofficeoftheRTOas
wellasintheconcernedpolicestation. Headmittedthatforthefirst
timehehadexaminedLandCruiserandtilltoday,hedidnotexamine
anyotherLandCruiservehicle.Hesubmittedthatasperlaw,proforma
isrequiredtobepreparedregardinginspectionofvehicle.
...135/
258.
..135..
Judgment
It is pertinent to note that the vehicle involved in the
incidentwasremovedandbroughtbeforetheBandraPoliceStationand
therefore,accordingtoPW19Keskar,hecouldnotinspectthevehicle
onthespot.
259.
FurtherPW19Keskaradmittedthattheformatwhichhe
hadpreparedisnotaspertheformatprescribedintheMaharashtra
Motor Vehicles Rules. The said witness volunteersthat he used the
formatgivenbytheGovernment. Duringthecourseofevidence,the
proforma from Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 was shown.
Accordingtowitness,thesaidproformamaybemoreexhaustivethan
theproformausedbyhim.
260.
PW19Keskaralsoadmittedthathecametoknowinthe
morning of 28.09.2002 that the incident had occurred. He had

inspectedthevehicleonthesamedayoftheincident. Hedemanded
theC.R.registerfromthepolice. CopyoftheFIRwasnotavailable.
Policetoldhimthatthedocumentswerebeingprepared.OneImtiyaz
wasseniortohimwhoaccompaniedPW19toBandraPoliceStation.
On 28.09.2002 at about 09.00 to 09.30 a.m. key of the car was
deliveredtothewitnessforinspectingthevehicle.Imtiyazwastelling
himastowhetherPW19hadcheckedtheparticularthingornotinthe
vehicle. PW19 also asked Imtiyaz about technical words such as
fender,siderunningboard.
261.
Further it has come in the evidence that PW19 Keskar
returnedthekeytotheofficerwithin20minutesfromthemovementit
...136/
..136..
Judgment
was received. NextdayalsoPW19visitedBandraPolice Station in

ordertoseecasepapersandInspectorKadamwasnotavailable.PW19
did not receive the particulars of the car either on 28.09.2002 or
29.09.2002,hecouldnotfilltheparticularsofthecarintheaccident
report.Headmitsthathedidnothavethedetailsofthevalidityofthe
car,motordrivinglicenceandalsoaboutthenameofthedriver. He
also had not taken the photographs of the vehicle at the time of
inspecting,northepolicetookthephotographsofthevehicle.PW19
obtainedtheaccidentformfromImtiyazKhan.On28.09.2002dueto
emergency call, there was no accident form available with him.
AccordingtoPW19,on29.09.2002hecarriedaccidentformalongwith
himtillthepolicestation. Thefirstcopyistobegiventothepolice
station. Thesecond copy remainswith R.T.O.office andthird copy
remainswiththerecord. PW19alsostatedincrossexaminationthat
he had filled the information regarding inspection carried out on
28.09.2002. He further stated that as his accident form book was
utilizedcompletely,hehadtakentheaccidentformfromMr.Imtiyaz.
Healsoadmittedthataccidentformistheonlyevidenceaboutwhathe
haddonewhileinspectingthevehicle.
262.
There are some omissions brought on record by the
defence.ItappearsthatearlierevidenceofPW19Keskarwasrecorded
beforetheMetropolitanMagistrate. PW19admittedthathedidnot
deposebeforetheMagistratethathewentbeneaththecarinorderto
seewhethertherewasanydamagecausedtothecarandhechecked
the oil, coolant, mechanical leakages and electrical connections. A
questionwasaskedtothewitnessaboutthetypesofoilsandalsoabout
theviscosityoftheoil.
...137/
263.
..137..
Judgment
Further PW19 Keskar also admitted that there is no
mentionbyhimintheaccidentreportformthatelectricalconnections
werechecked,oils,coolant,mechanicalleakageswerecheckedandall
foundtointact.
264.
IncrossexaminationPW19Keskaralsostatedthathehad
examined front left side tyre for a period of one or two minutes by
pressingitbyhands.Henoticedfrontleftsidetyredeflated.Healso
admitted that one cannot predict how accident occurred because of
conditionofthetyres.Headmitsthattyreisoneofthefactorsinthe
accident. Healsoadmittedthatneitherhementionedintheaccident
reportformthatthetyreswerefoundgoodincondition,norhestated
beforetheMetropolitanMagistrateaboutit.Healsoadmittedthatheis
nottheexpertoftherubberofthetyreandtyre.Healsocannottellthe
categoryofthetyreinspectedbyhimsuchastubeless,radial,runflat,
tyrewithtubes.Healsoadmittedthatifthevehicleisinapositionto
drive,thevehiclesarethenremovedbydriving,otherwisevehiclesare
removedbytowing.Healsoadmittedthatinfronttyreofthevehicle
foundtobe puncture,in thatsituation,the vehiclemayberemoved
fromtowing. HeadmittedthataspertheMotorVehiclesRules,the
vehicleistobepreservedinitsoriginalconditiontillinspectionisover.
265.
AccordingtoPW19Keskar,airpressuremeasuresinLBS
and he cannot say exactly how much air pressure was existing.
Normallythetyreexaminedbyhiminrespectofthevehicleinquestion.
ThereasongivenbyPW19isthatthevehicleisimported.Thereisno
...138/
..138..
Judgment
mentionintheaccidentreportformabouttheairpressurefoundinthe
tyreatthetimeoftheinspection.PW19alsodidnotverifyfromthe
policeastowhetherthebumperhadgone.PW19alsoadmittedthat
hedidnotremovethefronttyreforsendingittolaboratoryinorderto
ascertainthereasonofdeflationoftyre. PW19admittedthatwhile
runningthecar,ifpointedstonecomesincontactwiththetyre,then
tyremaybedeflated.
266.
PW19Keskaralsoadmittedthathedidnotpreparereport
ofinspectionimmediately.After24hoursofinspection,hehadwritten
theaccidentreportform.
267.
PW19Keskaralsostatedthatwhilecalculatingthespeed
ofvehicle,theenginehorsepowerisnotrelevant.Witnessagainsays
that engine horse power is relevant for the calculation of speed of
vehicle. Hestatedthatonestatementiscorrectandonestatementis
wrong.Immediatelyhecametoknowthathemadewrongstatement.
According to him, horse power is not relevant for calculation of the
speedisnotcorrect.
268.
IthascomeinthecrossexaminationthatPSIKadamdid
notgivepaperstoPW19Keskaraboutpanchanamaofthecarwhen
demanded by him as Kadam was to record the statements of the
witnesses.
269.
PW19Keskaralsoadmittedincrossexaminationthatifa
carhitsanobjectinspeed,thentherewouldbemoreimpactandthen
...139/
..139..
Judgment
in that event, damage would be more. In slow speed, the damage

causedwouldbelessintheincident. PW19statedthatairbagsare
safety features but were not deployed in the incident. Sensors are
availableatthefrontsideofthecar.Todeploytheairbagsandtosend
thesignaltothesensorscomeundertheoperationofelectronicsystem
inthecar.PW19admittedthathehadnotstatedintheaccidentreport
form or deposed before the Metropolitan Magistrate court that he
checkedtheelectronicsignalandtheywereinorderornot. Healso
admittedthatifthevehiclewasnotinspeed,theninthatevent,theair
bagswouldnotdeploy.
270.
PW19Keskaralsostatedthatthevehiclewashavingfront
brakesandthereisalsoAntilockBrakingSystem(ABS)availableinthe
car. ABSisusefulinordertooperate thebrakestoallfourwheels
simultaneously and also to prevent the car from skidding in the
incident.PW19admittedthatifthetyreisdeflatedtheninthateven
thevehiclewouldtiltinthatdirection,dependingupontheairpressure
inthetyre.Ifthefrontlefttyreisdeflatedinrunningcondition,then
the car will be pulled towards the left side. He also stated that
electronic control unit, electronic power steering, power system and
electroniccontrolmodelwereexistinginthecarinspectedbyhim.He
alsoadmittedthatincasethetyreispuncturedandatthesametimeif
thereisleakagefailure,theninthatcase,thecarwouldtiltmore.He
alsoadmittedthatincaseofpunctureoftyreorleakagefailure,the
controlofthepowersteeringmaybeaffectedslightly. Againwitness
says that in case of puncture or leakage failure,the steering control
wouldnotbeaffected.Sothewitnessgavetwodifferentanswers.
...140/
271.
..140..
Judgment
PW19Keskarstatedthathecannotsaywhetherifacarit
tiltedafterpunctureorfailureofleakage,thenthesteeringofthecar
wouldbeaffected.
272.
ThenPW19statedaboutthetestdriving. Hestatedthat
heplacedthekeyinthecarandenginewasstartedbystartbutton.It
hascomeintheevidencethatthekeywhichwasgiventohimwasan
electronickey.Thekeyrequirestobeplacedinsidethecar.Hefurther
stated that he does not remember whether the slot is available for
insertingthekey.Hedeposedthatenginestartedinasinglepushofthe
button.
273.
ItispertinenttonotethatPW19statedthatafterputting
thekeyintheslot,enginewasstarted,butsubsequently,hestatedthat
bypressingtheignitionbutton,theenginestarted. Hethendeposed
themannerhetookthetestdriveofthecar.Accordingtohim,hewent
to half kilometer towards Hill Road and 45 minutes are required to
reachhalfkilometerdistance. Hedeniedthattheroadonwhichthe
testdrivewastakenwasthebusyroad.PW19furtherstatedtheifthe
fronttyreisfounddeflated,then the vehiclewouldbe driven like a
vehiclewhichrunsnormally.Ifthesecondtyreisfounddeflated,then
theenginewouldrequiremorepowertorunthevehicle. Ifthethird
tyre is also found deflated then in that event the vehicle will move.
Furtherhestatedthathecannotsayhowmuchtimewouldberequired
for complete deflation of the front tyre inspected by him, if it is
punctured.Healsoadmittedthatifthefrontlefttyreisfounddeflated
thensteeringwillbecomehardwhiletakingturntowardsrightside.
...141/
274.
..141..
Judgment
PW19 also admitted that there is no mention in the
accidentreportformthatinspiteoffindinglessair,inleftsideportion,
he was in a position to drive the car. There is no mention in the
accidentreportformthathedrovethevehicleabouthalfkilometerand
thenparkedthevehicle. Healsostatedthathehasnotmentionedin
the accident report form that the tyresof the vehicle were foundin
goodconditionandthesensorsofthecarwerenotshowingthatthe
tyreswereinbadconditionandwhethertherewasanyleakageinthe
engine.
275.
In crossexamination PW19 Keskar denied that he never
inspectedthevehicleandgivenfalsereportonthesayofPoliceand
Imtiyaz. Healsodeniedthatthelefttyreofthevehiclewasdeflated,
therefore,thevehiclewasnotinapositiontobedriven.Healsodenied
that left front tyre was found burst. The ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade
vehemently submitted that PW19 no where stated in evidence that
frontleftsidetyredeflatedduetotheimpact.Thoughitismentioned
intheaccidentreportform,butPW19nowheredeposedthesaidfact.
AccordingtoMr.Shivade,theaccidentreportformisnotasperthe
MaharashtraMotorVehicleRules1989.
276.
Accordingtome,thesaidaccidentreportform(Exh.84)is
dulyexhibitedduringthecourseofevidenceanditbearsthesignature
ofthewitness.Soonecankeeprelianceontheaccidentreportform.
...142/
277.
..142..
Judgment
Ld.AdvocateMr.ShivadereliedonthecaseofTheBranch
Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Pudukkottai V/s.

Janakiandothers[2011(1) TNMAC366]. Inthesaidcase,itis
heldinpara11asunder:
11.
Thus,itisprovedthattherewasburstingoffront
tyreoftheCar.Whiledriving,oncetherightsidefront
tyreburststhatwouldleadtothelossofcontrolofthe
vehicle.Itwasanadmittedfactthatthedeceaseddriver
attemptedtoovertakeabullockCartandatthattime,
the tyre burst took place. It was the case of the
AppellantInsurance Company that at the time of
accident,abuscameintheoppositedirection.However,
theinsuranceCompanyisnotabletogivethedetailsof
the alleged bus that came in the opposite direction.
Thesearealltheaggravativefactors.Alreadythedriver
lostthecontrolduetotyreburstandtheCarwenttothe
rightsideoftheroadandcrossedthemudportionand
thereafter, hit against a banian tree. Therefore, the
aforesaid evidence, more particularly Exh. A4, would
makeitclearthatthedriverwasnotresponsibleforthe
accident.Thedrivercouldnotbestatedtobenegligent
incausingthe accident. The accidentwasdue tothe
frontrightsidetyreburst.
278.
Thedefencecomeswiththestorythattherewasasudden
burstoffrontlefttyreandthesteeringbecamehardandtherebycar
hadclimbedthestairsandhittheshutter. Pw19Keskardeniedthat
...143/
..143..
Judgment
thetyrewasburst.Inpanchanamaalso,thereismentionthatfrontleft
tyre was punctured. PW1 Sambha Gauda is the witness on
panchanama (Exh.28). In crossexamination by the accused, PW1
statedthatlefttyreofthecarwasfoundpunctured. Thesaidfactis
broughtinthecrossexaminationofPW1Gauda. Nosuggestionwas
giventohimthatthefrontlefttyrewasfoundburst. PW26Kadam
stateddifferentlyincrossexaminationthatfrontlefttyrewasburstand
onlywheel base hadremained. However,on perusal of photograph
(Art.F),thefrontlefttyrewasfoundtobepuncturedandwasnotfound
tobeburst,displayingwheelbase.
279.
afteraccident,internalpartsofthevehicleshownodamageandthere
was some damage to the left head light and dent on the left side.
Further the fiber bumper was intact. According to him, there is
evidenceoftwowitnessesadmittingthataftertheincidentthebumper
wasattachedtothecaranditcameuponlywhenthecarwasliftedby
cranetyingthehooktothebumper.FurtheraccordingtoMr.Shivade,
fiberbumperwouldnotsurvive,ifthecarhitsagainstthestationary
objectwithaspeedof90to100k.m.perhour. Furtherld.Advocate
Mr. Shivade submitted that PW19 admitted that high speed would
causemoredamagewhereaslowspeedwouldcauselowdamage.Itis
pertinenttonotethatthevehiclewasbroughtfromabroadintheyear
2000. Soitappearstobenewvehicleatthetimeofincident. The
vehicle has power steering automatic. The vehicle is having power
brakes,powerwindow.ThevehiclewashavingABSSystem.Thetyres
ofLandCruiserweretubeless.ThesaidfactisadmittedbyDW1Ashok
...144/
..144..
Judgment
Singh.Furtherthecarissturdyandsportutilityvehicle.Thetyrewas
havinglargewidthinsize. Italsorunsoftheroad,onstonesandon
unevensurface.
280.
Furtheritiscontendedbyld.AdvocateMr.Shivadethatin
theincident,airbagsofthevehiclewerenotdeployed. Accordingto
Mr.Shivade,thisdemonstratesthatthevehiclewasnotinspeedand
there was no impact. It is pertinent to note that the vehicle after
dashingNurullaandrunningoverhimandoverotherlabourersclimbed
threestairsofAmericanExpressandalsorammedtheshutter.Inthat
process, the speed of the vehicle may be slowed down and the
possibilityofnotdeployingairbagscannotberuledout.
281.
Further it is vehemently submitted by ld. Advocate Mr.
ShivadethattheRTOInspectorMr.Keskardidnottaketestdrive.RTO
Inspectoradmittedthatthereisnomentionintheaccidentreportform
thathehadtakenthetestdrive. Thereappearstobeacontradictory
version in order to start the vehicle by the witness. PW19 Keskar
stated that he insert the ignition key in the ignition slot initially.
Howeverduringthecourseofevidencehestatedthathepushedthe
buttontostarttheengineafterpressingtheelectronickeyinthecar.If
reallyKeskarhadtakenthetestdrive,hewouldhavementionedinthe
accident report. So evidence in respect of taking test drive is not
satisfactory. However thatdoes notmean that the testimony of the
Keskar is liable to be thrown away. Admittedly there was no
mechanicaldefectinthevehicle.Accordingtothedefencethetyrewas
burstwhichisdeniedbyPW19Keskar.Onperusalofthephotograph
...145/
..145..
Judgment
(ArticleF),itwouldrevealthattyrewasnotburst.Thoughaccording
toShriShivadethewheelbaseisexposedbutthephotographarticleF
nowhereshowsthesaidfact. Moreoverwhenthecarranoverthe
personsandthefronttyresdashedagainstthestairsoftheAmerican
ExpressandcarhadclimbedtwothreestairsoftheLaundry,inthat
casepossibilityoffronttyredeflatedcannotberuledout.
282.
The ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade also contended that RTO
Inspector PW19 Keskar used the old proforma. According to ld.

AdvocateMr.Shivade,asperMaharashtraMotorVehiclesRules1989,
theinspectionofthevehiclemustbeshownintheproformaprescribed
underthesaidRules.ThoughRTOInspectordidnotusetheproforma
ascontemplatedbytheMotorVehiclesRules1989andappearstobe
used old proforma, in my opinion, that will not fatal to the case of
prosecution as admittedly, there was no mechanical defect in the
vehicle.Onlydisputablepointiswhethertheleftfronttyrewasburstor
not.
283.
IftheargumentofMr.Shivadeisacceptedthatthecarwas
notinspeed,then,itisverydifficulttodigestthatwhenthecarwasin
slow speed, the tyre would burst. If the vehicle was driven slowly
accordingtoMr.Shivade,thenthevehiclewashavingtheABSsystem
andifthebrakeswereapplied,theninthatcircumstances,thequestion
ofskiddingthevehicledoesnotarise.
284.
Moreover, it is brought on record that the tyres of the
vehicleweretubeless.Ifthetyresweretubelessandifpunctured,the
...146/
..146..
Judgment
tubelesstyreslettheairoutslowly. Butintubetyres(normaltyres),
thedeflationisfast,therebydamagingthetyreandthetube. Sothe
deflationisfastintubetyrestherebydamagingthetyre.However,in
tubelesstyres,whichthe vehicle washavingatthe time of incident,
sometimewillrequireforcompletedeflation.
285.
Itisalsopertinenttonotethatifthevehiclewasgoingin
slowspeedasarguedbyMr.Shivade,thenthevehiclecouldbestopped
byapplyingbrakesandthevehiclecouldnotbeskidduetoABSsystem.
However,whathappenedonourcaseisthatthevehicleleavestheroad
wentonthefootpathranoverthepersonssleepingonthefootpathand
climbed23stairsofAmericanExpress.Itmeansthatthevehiclewasin
speed,however,afterrunningoverthebakerypersonsandclimbingthe
stairswouldnaturallyaffectthespeedofthe vehicle anditsimpact.
However,somenoisewouldoccurwhichwasheardbyPW7Francis
whohadrushedtothespot.SotheargumentofMr.Shivadethatthe
tyrewasburstisruledout. Thevehiclecouldnotbecontrolledwhile
turningontheHillRoadandthevehiclewentstraightonthefootpath
andclimbed23stairsofAmericanExpressLaundry. Sonaturally
speedofthevehiclewouldhavesloweddownafterrunningoverthe
labourers and climbing 23 stairs and in that, the possibility of not
receivingdamagemoretocarcannotberuledout.Soitcannotbesaid
thattheaccidentoccurredduetotyrebursting.Theaccidentoccurred
due to rash and negligent driving while not controlling the vehicle
properlyontheturning.IfaccordingtoMr.Shivadethetyrewasburst
and only wheel base remained, then in that circumstance, it will be
impossiblethatcarwillclimb23stairs.Itmeansthattheremustbe
...147/
..147..
Judgment
lessairinthetyreenablingvehicletoclimbover23stairs.EvenArt.F
showsthatthetyrewasnotburstandcontentionthatonlywheelbase
remainedisnotcorrect. Consideringtheevidence,thetheoryofthe
frontlefttyre burstcannot be accepted. The factsin the citedcase
[2011(1)TNMAC366]willnotbeapplicabletoourcaseathand.
E)
Evidenceofalcoholconsumption:
286.
Theprosecutionclaimsthatatthetimeofincident,when
the accused was driving the vehicle, he was under the influence of
liquor.TheprosecutionhasexaminedPW5Malay,Waiterworkingin
the Rain Bar & Restaurant, PW9 Rizwan Rakhangi, Manager at the
relevanttimeinRainBar&Restaurant. Theprosecutionalsoclaims
that there is evidence of PW20 Dr. Pawar who has extracted blood
sampleforalcoholtestfromSalmanandaftersealingthebottleasper
proceduremaintainedinJ.J.Hospital,thesaidsealedbloodsamplewas
also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina. Pw18 had
analyzedthebloodsampleandfound62mg.ethylalcoholintheblood
ofaccused.
287.
Itispertinenttonotethattheaccusedneverdisputedhis
visittoRainBar&Restaurantatabout11.00p.m.Itisthedefenceof
theaccusedthatheonlydrankwater. Accordingtold.AdvocateMr.
Shivade,thereisnoevidencetoshowthattheaccuseddrankalcoholin
theRainBar&Restaurant.
288.
The evidence of PW5 Malay Bag reveals that on
27.09.2002hewasondutyinthebarassteward,heusedtoprovide
...148/
..148..
Judgment
foodandbeveragetothecustomers.Asperhisversion,atabout12.00
midnight,SalmanKhanandhisfriendsvisitedthebar.Therewasrush
inthebar.200to250customerswerepresentinthebar.SalmanKhan
andhisfriendswerestandingatthebarcounter.Itispertinenttonote
thatSohelKhanalsovisitedinthenighton27.09.2002toRainBar.
PW6BaluMuthe,bodyguardofSohelKhan,alsoconfirmedthesaid
fact.ItisalsonotdisputedbytheaccusedthatSohelKhanvisitedRain
Bar&Restaurant.
289.
The evidence of PW5 Malay Bag further reveals that
SalmanKhanandhisfriendswerestandingintheBar.Theygaveorder
to the Manager. Manager asked PW5 to provide service to Salman
Khanandhisfriends.PW5keptBaccardiandwhiterumandcocktail
onthetable.Prawns,ChickenswerealsoorderedandsuppliedbyPW5.
ThefriendsofSalmanKhanalsoorderedprawns,chicken. Atabout
01.10a.m.SalmanKhanandhisfriendslefttheBar.AccordingtoPW
5,SalmanKhanisaregularvisitorofBar,therefore,heknewhim.
290.
Ld.AdvocateMr.ShivadealsocrossexaminedPW5Malay
atlength.Thereisnodisputethatattherelevanttime,therewasbig
eventgoingoninthebar.PW5admitsthatbillfortheorderistobe
preparedonthecomputer.HallofRainBarmightbeadmeasuring20ft
x20ft.inarea.Thereisalsoabarcounterinthehallwheredrinksare
supplieddirectlytothecustomers.Pw5MalayBaginhisexamination
inchief stated that Salman and his friends were standing at Bar
counter. So if really Salman Khan and his friends did not want to
consumealcohol,whatwasoccasionforthemtostandatbarcounter
...149/
..149..
Judgment
wheredrinksaresupplied. FurtherincrossexaminationPW5stated
thatthetabledarearrangedinthehall.Thecustomersoccupyingthe
tablearereflectedinthecolumncoveredinthebill. PW5andother
Stewards who used to take orders of food and beverages supplied
informationatthetimeofpreparationofbills. Ifasinglecustomeris
occupying one table, then the said person comes under the column
covered as one. If 8 customers occupied the table, then the said
customerscameunderthecolumncoveredinthebill. Everytableis
allottedanumberinordertoidentifyatthetimeofthepreparationof
billandthesaidtablenumberisalsodisplayedinbill.AtBarcounter
personwouldtakeorderforprovidingbills,asparticularnumberisalso
mentionedinthebill.Iftwopersonstooktheorderatthebarcounter
thenthereisdifferentcodeoftwopersons.
291.
In crossexamination Pw5 Malay is admitted that if an
order is given to provide the drink at the table occupied by 8 9

persons,thensomepersonssittingonthetablemayconsumethedrink,
othersmaynot. Theorderforthedrinkswasgivenbythefriendsof
SalmanandnotbySalman.Thereweredimlightsexistinginthehall
andloudmusicwasplaying.Pw5admittedthatonecannotseefrom
one table to other table which customers were consuming food or
beverage.FurtherPW5admittedthattheplacewhereSalmanandhis
friendsweresittingwasnotvisiblefromtheplacewhereRizwanwas
standing. AsSalmanandhisfriendswerestandinginthehall,table
numbercouldnotbereflectedinthebill.
...150/
292.
..150..
Judgment
PW9 Rizwan also deposed that at about 11.00 p.m.
Salman Khan, Sohel Khan and their friends visited Hotel Rain Bar.
TheygaveordertoPW5Malay. Asrestaurantwasfull,Salmanand
Sohel Khan were standing in front of Service Counter. Drinks and
snackswereprovidedonthestandingbarcounter.
293.
It has come in examinationinchief on record of PW9
Rizwan that he had seen Salman possessing white colour glass. In

crossexamination PW9 admitted that the bill only shows the order
givenbythepersonoccupiedbytheparticulartable. Nonameofthe
customerisgeneratedinthebillandthenameofthepersonwhopays
themoneyofbill,alsodoesnotreflectinthebill.
294.
Further PW9 Rizwan admitted that table nos.38, 40, 13
and 18 were different and also placed at different place in the

restaurant. AccordingtoPW9,policehadvisitedthebarandtoldto
give the bills on 27.09.2002. The police had inspected the bills by
whichthealcoholwasorderedbythecustomers.PolicehadgivenPW
9fourbillsinspectedbythepoliceandtoldPW9tosign.
295.
IncrossexaminationPW9RizwanstatedthatBacardirum
lookslikewater.SalmanKhanwasdrinkingclearliquid.PW9stated
thatclearliquidlookslikewater.Relyingonhiscrossexamination,itis
arguedbytheld.SPPthatbynostretchofimagination,itcanbesaid
thatSalmanKhanwasdrinkingonlywater. Ithascomeonrecordin
theevidencethatSalmanKhanisaregularvisitortoRainBar.Noone
in the night may visit the bar for the purpose of drinking water.
...151/
..151..
Judgment
AccordingtoMr.SPP,0.062mg.ethylalcoholwasfoundinthebloodof
Salmanandtherefore,itcansafelybeinferredthatitwasSalmanwho
drankbackardirumwhichlookslikewater.Ihavealsogonethrough
the bills produced on record which was seized by Pw27 Shengal,
Investigating Officer. Even for the sake of moment, the said bill
excludes from the consideration, when it shows the different table
numberinthehallandSalmanandhisfriendswerestandingatthebar
counter,however,thefactremainsthattheaccuseddrankclearliquid
whichlookslikebacardirumandthesaidfactisalsocorroboratedby
presenceofalcoholinthebloodsampleoftheaccused.
296.
Furtherld.AdvocateMr.Shivadevehementlyarguedthat
PW9RizwanadmittedthatSalmanKhanwasfoundwalkingnormally
whileleavingRainBar. Whenpersonconsumedliquorordrink,then
whiletalkingwiththesaidpersononecansmellalcoholfromthesaid
person.AccordingtoMr.Shivade,ld.Advocate,PW9admittedthathe
didnotnoticeanysmellofalcoholfromSalman.Furtherld.Advocate
Mr.Shivade alsocontendedthatfrom RainBar the accusedwentto
J.W.Mariotandifreallytheaccusedhadconsumedalcohol,thenthe
saidfactwasalsonoticedbyPW12KalpeshVerma,parkingassistantof
theporchwherecarofSalmanwasparked.Furtherithascomeinthe
evidence of complainant Patil (Exh.141) that Salman was drank.
However,thereisomissiononhisparttomentionintheFIRlodgedby
him. However, in supplementary statement recorded on 01.10.2002
complainant Patil deposed that the body language of Salman was
lookingassuchashedrankalcohol. However,wehavetoscrutinize
theevidenceofDoctorwhoisanexpertinordertocometothecorrect
...152/
..152..
Judgment
findingastowhether0.062mg.ethylalcoholwasfoundinthebloodof
Salman.
297.
NowturningtotheevidenceofPW20Dr.Pawar.TheLd.
Adv.ShriShivadealsocriticizedtheevidenceofPW20Dr.Pawar.The
evidence of PW20 Dr. Pawar reveals that he was on duty on
28.09.2002from02.00p.m.to06.00p.m.SalmanKhanwasbrought
totheCasualtyDepartmentofJ.J.Hospital.PC2895andPCSalunke
(PW22)werewithSalmanKhan. SalmanKhanwasbroughttoJ.J.
Hospital for extracting blood sample for alcohol test. The memo of
policestationisalsoidentifiedbyPW20.Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivade
objectedforgivingexhibittothesaidmemo. Accordingtome,when
witnessdeposedthattheaccusedwassentalongwithmemobyBandra
PoliceStation,andalsowhenSalmanadmittedu/s.313oftheCr.P.C.
thathisbloodwasextractedintheJ.J.Hospital,thegroundofobjection
takenbydefenceaboutexhibitingmemodoesnotsurvive.
298.
PW20DR.PawaralsoclinicallyexaminedSalman Khan.
Theaccuseddeniedtohaveconsumedalcohol. AccordingtoPW20,
breathwassmellingalcohol.Pupilsofaccusedwereslightlydilated,git
wasnormal,speechwasfoundcoherent.Pw20alsoaskedSalmanfor
verbalconsentofextractingthesample.Identitymarkofaccusedwas
noted.Hisleftthumbimpressionwasobtainedontheregisteraswell
ashissignaturewastaken.
299.
Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadevehementlysubmittedthatit
wasincumbentonthepartofDr.Pawartoobtainthewrittenconsent
...153/
..153..
Judgment
fromSalman.Moreover,thereissilenceaboutoralconsenttakeninthe
evidenceofPW20recordedbeforetheMetropolitanMagistrate.Inmy
opinion that will not affect the evidence of PW20 Pawar adduced
beforethisCourt.
300.
ThenPW20Pawarnarratedinevidenceaboutextracting
theblood.ThebloodsamplewassealedinhispresencebyWardBoy,
asperthestandardproceduremaintainedinJ.J.Hospital.
301.
As per the version of PW20 Dr. Pawar, one phial was
havingoxalatepreservativeandotherphialwasplain. Bloodsample
wastakenfromAnterialCubitalFossaoftherighthandofSalman.6cc
blood was transferred from Salman and out of it, 3 cc each was
transferredtotwophialsrespectively.
302.
theaccusedwasfirstlysenttoBhabhaHospital.Theaccusedu/s.313of
the Cr. P.C. also stated that his blood sample was taken in Bhabha
Hospital. Further it is contended by Mr.Shivade that there was no
alcohol noticed in the blood taken at Bhabha Hospital, therefore,
accusedwassenttoJ.J.Hospital.
303.
IfindnosubstanceinthesubmissionofMr.Shivadeonthe
reason that no suggestion was given to Dr. Pawar at the time of

extractingthebloodofaccusedthatthereisalsoamarkonthehandof
theaccusedforextractingthebloodsample.Thejudicialnoticecanbe
takenthatwheneveronesubjectedforbloodsample,thenaftertaking
...154/
..154..
Judgment
bloodsample,averysmallpieceofstickingplasterisappliedtothe
placefromwherebloodwasextracted. However,nosuggestionwas
giventoDr.PawarthatinBhabhaHospital,bloodwastaken.
304.
Further the InvestigatingOfficer Shengal alsostated that
PSI Suryavanshi informed him that there was no facility of blood

extractioninBhabhaHospitalattherelevanttime. Ld.AdvocateMr.
Shivadesubmittedthatthesaidevidenceishearsayevidence. Ifind
thatitwasthedutyoftheInvestigatingOfficertoexplainastowhy
bloodsamplewasnottakeninBhabhaHospital.Wehavetogotoroot
of the case and therefore, according to me, it will not be hearsay
evidence. Even though PSI Suryavanshi is not examined by
prosecution,noeffortsweremadebythedefencetocalltherecordfrom
BhabhaHospitalaboutSalmanKhan.WhentheaccusedexaminedDW
1 Ashok in his defence to demonstrate that Ashok was driving the
vehicle, then the accused would have examined the witness from
BhabhaHospital.Onewhoallegedorassertthenitisincumbentonthe
partoftheaccusedtoshowthatthebloodwastakenintheBhabha
Hospital.Furtheritishighlyimprobablethatonecannoticepresence
of alcohol in the sample when initially it was drawn before doing
analysisofthebloodsample.SoIfindnoforceintheargumentofMr.
ShivadethatbloodsamplewasalsotakeninBhabhaHospital.
305.
It is also important to note here that ld. Advocate Mr.
Shivadewhilearguingalsoattackedonthesealingprocessbywardboy.
According to him, the actor's blood sample sent for alcohol analysis
couldhavebeenhandledbyGovernmenthospitalwardboywhowas
...155/
..155..
Judgment
drunk.ItisalsoarguedthatwehaveheardthatinmanyGovernment
hospitalwardboysaredrunkonduty. AccordingtoMr.Shivade, if
wardboywasdrunkandhadtouchedthetapeatatimingofsealing,
thechancesofcontaminatingsamplebottlecannotberuledout.
306.
IfindnosubstanceinthesubmissionofMr.Shivadethat
whatistheevidenceonrecordledbyaccusedinsupportofallegation
againstwardboy.ThebloodphialsweresealedinpresenceofPW20
Dr.Pawarbywardboyandanythingiffoundotherwise,PW20would
nothaveallowedthesaidwardboytodothesealing.
307.
IthascomeintheevidenceofPW20Dr.Pawarthatthe
bloodsamplewastransferredfromsyringetotwophials.Bottleswere
cappedbywhitecolourbandage(stickingplaster).Thesealoflakhwas
putontheupperandlowerendofboththephials.ThelabelingofEPR
number about the date, time and PC number was done and it was
wrappedalongwithtwophials.PW20alsosignedonthelabel.The
signatureoftheaccusedwasobtainedonEPRregister.SignatureofPSI
Salunke(Pw22)aswellassignatureofPC27451wasalsoobtainedon
EPRregister.Healsoobtainedtheinitialandthumbimpressionofthe
accusedandalsothepoliceofficersonformAandB.
308.
ThereareentriesintheEPRregisterregardingcollectionof
the blood sample of the accused. OPD form (Exh.98) is in the

handwriting of PW20 Dr.Pawar. He also brought original casualty
register in the Court at the time of examination. PW20 also
highlightedalltheentriesintheregisterinexaminationoftheaccused.
...156/
..156..
Judgment
Exh.99aretheentriesinEPRregister.Thereisalsoathumbimpression
ofaccusedobtainedinthesaidentry.
309.
Exh.100 and Exh.100A are the form A and B in the
handwritingofDr.Pawarandsignedbyhim.ItisalsogaveformA
andBinasealedenvelopalongwithsealedbottledtoBandraPolice
Stationforchemicalanalysis.PW20alsosignedonthetwoseals.
310.
There is grueling crossexamination on behalf of the
accusedconductedbyAdvocateMr.Shivade.PW20Dr.Pawardenied
thatintheyear2002,therewasglassinjectionsyringeutilized. Itis
pertinenttonotethatajudicialnoticecanbetakenthatdisposable
syringe termed as use and throw came in existence and they were
availableintheyear2002.WhenPW20deniedthatintheyear2002,
there were glass injections utilized, it means that at that time,
disposablesyringewereutilized.Thejudicialnoticeofthesaidaspect
canbetaken.
311.
Theld.AdvocatefortheaccusedcontendedthatPW20Dr.
PawarcommittedbreachoftherulesofBombayProhibition(Medical
ExaminationandBloodTest)Rules,1959,moreparticularlyRule(3)
and(4).
312.
Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadealsoreliedonthereported
judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Tulsiram

Gangaram Raykar V/s. The State of Maharashtra [1977 U.C.R.
(Bom.) 532] Criminal Revision Application No.38 of 1975, with
...157/
..157..
Judgment
CriminalRevisionApplicationNo.544of1975,decidedon28176.
Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and
BloodTest)Rules,1959,Rules,3,4and5.Procedure
fortakingandtestingblood.
Rule3referstoprovisionofSec.129AoftheAct,
and empowers Medical Officer to collect the blood of
such person and furnish to officer by whom he was
produced, in a certificate, in Form A, containing his
examination.
Rule 4, deals with manner of collection and
forwardingofblood.
The Rules are mandatory, in the view taken by
Supreme Court. The question is whether words of
Medical Officer, should be acted upon without
corroboration;whenhespeakstocontentsofhisown
certificate.
Held,someofthesesymptomswouldappearina
person who has consumed toddy. Doctors evidence
cannotbeacceptedbeyondimpeach,andintroducesan
element of doubt, to which, the accused would be
entitled.
313.
Mr.Shivadealsoreliedonthereportedjudgmentincaseof
StateofMaharashtrav/s.RaghunathMadhavraoMarathe[1986(3)
Bom C.R. 341 (Aurangabad Bench)] Criminal Appeal No. 161 of
1985,decidedon2881986.Inthesaidcase,itisheldasunder:
...158/
..158..
Judgment
(A) BombayProhibition Act,1949,Sec.66(1)(b)&

(2)Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and
BloodTest)Rules,1959,R4Chargeunder section
66(1) (b)Acquittal ValidityNoncompliance with
requirements of Rule 4 of Blood Test Rules
Presumption under section 66(2) not available
Acquittalvalid.
TheDoctordidnotsayinhisevidencethatsyringe
wassterilized.Healsodidnotsayinhisevidencethat
no alcohol was touched by him at any stage while
extractingthebloodfromthebodyoftheaccused. He
further did not say in his evidence that the blood
collected in the syringe was transferred into a phial
containinganticoagulantandpreservativeandthatthe
phial was then shaken vigorously to dissolve the
anticoagulantandpreservativeintheblood. Heldthe
accused would be liable to be acquitted of offence
punishable under section 66(1)(b), as important
precautionswerenottakenincollectingthebloodtobe
sentforchemicalanalysis.Exceptpointingoutthatthe
Chemical Analyser would not have been able to carry
outhisanalysisandwouldnothavesenthisreportand
wouldhavemadeagrievanceaboutthebloodbeingnot
inpropercondition,nopositivematerialwasplacedto
show that there was substantial compliance with the
aboverequirementofRule4. Further,ifthereportof
thechemicalanalysiscouldnotbeacceptedascorrect
...159/
..159..
Judgment
fornoncompliancewiththerequirementofRule4the
presumptionundersection66(2)wouldnotbeavailable
totheprosecutionasitisclearfromsection129Aand
129B,thatithisreportistobereadasevidence,thenit
hastobeinthemannerprescribedunderRule4. Itis
open to the prosecution to establish its case without
treatingitaspresumptiveevidenceundertheaforesaid
provisions. Even if the said report could be used as
evidence under section 293 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure the said report does not show whether the
above requirements of the rule were substantially
compliedwith.Onlybecausethereporttheshowsthat
certain conclusionsare arrivedat,itwouldnotfollow
that the blood was in proper conditions and that the
resultsofthechemicalanalysiswerecorrect.Therefore,
theaccusedwasrightlyacquitted.
314.
Mr.Shivadealsoreliedonthereportedjudgmentincaseof
ShravanGanpatRandhirV/s.StateofMaharashtra(1979Bom.C.R.
419)CriminalRevisionApplicationNo.177of1979,decidedon10
71979.Inthesaidcase,itisheldasunder:
(B) Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, Secs. 66(2)
Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood
Test)Rules,1959,Rr.4&5Collectionandforwarding
ofbloodPresumptionundersection66(2)oftheAct
Held, prosecution solely relying on report of Medical
Analyserforbloodconcentration,willnotbeentitledto
...160/
..160..
Judgment
benefitofpresumptionundersection66(2)oftheAct.
RequirementsintheRule4aremandatoryaswasheld
byGujaratHighCourtinrulingreferredtwoinabsence
ofanyevidenceofcompliance,held,reportofMedical
Analyserwillloseallevidentialvalue.
ThereisabsolutelynoevidencebeforetheCourtto
cometoanconclusioninfavouroftheprosecutionthat
thesyringeinquestionwassterilizedinthepresentcase
with boiling water before being used for taking the
blood. Nor is there any evidence before the Court to
cometoaconclusioninfavouroftheprosecutionthat
the Medical Officer cleaned with sterilized water and
swabbedtheskinsurfaceofthatpartofthebodyfrom
whichbloodwasintendedtobedrawn.Noristhereany
evidence before the Court to come to a positive
conclusion in favour of the prosecution that the blood
collected in the syringe was transferred into a phial
containing anti coagulant and preservative nor any
evidencebeforetheCourttoconcludethatthephialwas
then shaken vigorously to dissolve anticoagulant and
preservativeintheblood. Theseindeedareimportant
requirements,ifthereportofthechemicalAnalyseristo
besimplicityrelieduponbytheCourtinordertoreach
conclusiononewayortheotherinaprosecutionasof
theinstantnature.(Para6)
...161/
315.
..161..
Judgment
In all these cases, charge u/s.66(1)(B) of the Bombay
ProhibitionActwasframed.Inourcaseinhand,nochargeisframed
u/s.66(1)(B)oftheBombayProhibitionAct. However,thechargeis
framedagainsttheaccusedu/s.185oftheMotorVehicleAct.
316.
Itispertinenttonotethatafterframingthechargebymy
ld. Predecessor, neither prosecution nor defence made any grievance

beforemethatchargeu/s.66(1)(B)wasnotframedbeforeadducing
evidence. Reliance is placed on the landmark judgment of the
Aliester Pareira V/s. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal
No.430 of 2007 filed by State of Maharashtra against Aliester
PareirawithCriminalAppealNo.566of2007StateofMaharashtra
through Khar Police Station v/s. Aliester Pareira with Criminal
Appeal475/07filedbyAlisterPareiraagainstStateofMaharashtra.
AllthesethreeappealscametobedecidedbytheHon'bleLordshipsof
theDivisionBench. ItisobservedbyTheirLordshipsoftheDivision
BenchoftheHon'bleHighCourt,Bombayinpara66thattheargument
onbehalfoftheaccusedthatnoncomplianceofthestatutoryprovisions
prescribed in the rules framed under Bombay Prohibition Act could
vitiatethetrialisalsowithoutmerit. Firstlythoughtheaccusedwas
not charged for the offence punishable u/s.66(1)(B) of the Bombay
ProhibitionAct,bothpartiesstoodtothetrialwithoutanyprotest.In
ouropinionandforthepurposeofthepresentcase,relevantprovisions
oflawhavebeensubstantiallycompliedwith. Thebloodsamplewas
taken by the Medical Officer and it was examined by the Chemical
Analyzeraspertherulesandprocedure.Relianceonsomeofthecases
cited on behalf of the accused to substantiate the plea that in such
...162/
..162..
Judgment
accidentcasesonlyoffencethatwouldbemadeoutwouldbeSec.304A
of the IPC, is without substance and merit. Every case has to be
examinedonitsownfacts.
317.
Inthepresentcase,thereisnochargeu/s.66(1)(B)ofthe
BombayProhibitionAct.Thechargeu/s.185oftheMotorVehicleActis
framed. If alcohol percentage is higher than .30 mg. in blood then
provisionsu/s185MotorVehicleActwouldbeattracted.
318.
Further in our case, Dr. Pawar denied in the cross
examinationthattheglasssyringewasutilized.Asdiscussedabovethe
judicial notice can be taken that disposable syringes, use and throw
commonlycalledareused.Therefore,thoughtheDoctordidnotstate
in his evidence that the syringe was sterilized is of no consequence.
FurtherincrossexaminationDr.Pawaradmittedthatwithoutapplying
antiseptic at the place where blood sample was taken taken from
Salman,sothetheoryofapplyingspiritorantisepticattheplacebefore
drawingthebloodisalsoruledout.EventheDoctorhasstatedthathe
transferred 3 c.c. blood of Salman into a phial having oxalate
preservativeand3ccbloodinplainphial.Sosubstantialcomplianceis
madebyDr.Pawar.Whatwillbeeffectofnonadding5gmsofsodium
fluoride in blood sample and its effect would be a question to be
discussed later on in the judgment. Moreover, as stated above the
charge is not framed u/s.66(1)(B), therefore, blood test rules of the
year1959arenotapplicabletoourcaseinhand.
...163/
319.
..163..
Judgment
Exh.98istheOPDformandonecancallitascasepaper.
Nothumbimpressionwasobtainedonthesaidform. Backportionof
Exh.98aboutSalmanKhanisacarboncopy.ItappearsthatDr.Pawar
had written the word for blood collection on the back portion of
Exh.98asitwasnotimprint.AccordingtoMr.Shivade,Exh.98isthe
fabricatedcopy.InExh.98casepapers,thereisnomentionaboutthe
consentobtainedfromaccusedpriortohisexamination. PW20also
admitted that the dilation of the pupils is not conclusive test of
consumptionofalcohol.Healsoadmittedthatonthebackportionof
Exh.98thereisnomentionthatbreathsmellsalcohol.InEPRregister,
itismentionedtothateffect. PW20alsocannotsaywhytheword
alcoholwasnotimprintonthebackportionofExh.98. Ifreallythe
saidcasepaperwasthefabricateddocumentasarguedbyld.Advocate
Mr.Shivade,thenitwouldbeveryeasiertoDr.Pawartowriteabout
alcoholbyballpen.ThisisnotdonebyDr.Pawar.Dr.Pawarhasno
enmityorgrudgeagainsttheaccusedtoimplicateaccused.
320.
Dr.Pawaradmittedthathedoesnotknowabouttheblood
test rules. In my opinion, every Doctor who takes the blood in

prohibition case must know about the rules for taking sample.
However,inviewoftheabovediscussion,theevidenceofDr.Pawar
cannotbethrownaway.
321.
PW20 Pawar also gave evidence in the Metropolitan
MagistrateCourt. HehadcarriedEPRregisteralongwithhiminthe
CourtofMagistrateatthetimeofgivingevidence. Healsoadmitted
that there is an endorsement in his handwriting on 20.11.2010 that
...164/
..164..
Judgment
copyoftheArt.BcasepapermarkedinthelowerCourtregardingtrue
copyandheendorsedthatcontentsinArt.Bi.e.casepapersareasper
EPRbook.Art.BisatExh.103.Itispertinenttonotethataccusedwas
examinedinJ.J.HospitalandaccordingtoMr.Shivade,theevidenceas
regardstheexaminationofaccusediscontradictory.PW20Dr.Pawar
deniedthattheaccusedwasdischargedatabout02.30p.m.fromthe
room. Portion marked A also shown to him from the cross
examinationthatatabout02.30aftercollectingthebloodsamplethe
patient was discharged from the room, is recorded as per his say.
PortionmarkedAisatExh.104.
322.
PW20alsoadmittedthatSalmanKhanbroughtat02.25
p.m. Incrossexaminationheadmittedthatattherelevanttime,no
bloodspecialkitforcollectionofbloodwasprovided.Healsoadmitted
thattheplaceforkeepingphialsisinexaminationroom.Thesyringes
werealsokeptnearphialsinexaminationroom.Healsoadmittedthat
rubberstoppersareprovidedforphialsorbottles.Healsocannotsay
whobroughttheboxcontainingphialsfromstoreroominexamination
room. The two bottles were kept by him on the platform in
examinationroomtillhedrawtheblood. Thephialishavingoxalate
preservative is having white colour. He cannot comment whether
preservativeusedinthephialtopreventfermentation,coagulationand
also enzamatic reaction in the blood. The preservative also used to
preventhaemolysis. Witnessstatedthatthephialwhichwashaving
oxalatewasalabelledphial.Theoxalatekeepsthebloodwholeintact.
Headmittedthatafterextractingofblood,theprocessofcoagulationof
bloodstarts.However,heunabletotellhowmuchtimewouldrequire
forcoagulation,thebloodtransferredinphial.
...165/
323.
..165..
Judgment
PW20Dr.Pawaralsoadmittedthatoxalateisknownas
Anticoagulantoftheblood.Therefore,inthemedicalfield,theoxalate
iscalledaspreservative.
324.
PW20Dr.Pawaralsostatedthatheheardaboutsodium
fluoride for collecting of the blood for testing the blood sugar level.
According to him, prior to sealing the plain bottle of 3 cc blood,
coagulation of blood must have started. He cannot say whether if
alcoholtestisdone,whenthepercentageofalcoholwouldfindmorein
serum than rest of the blood components. He also unable to tell
whetheroxalatepreservativeisnotusedinphial,theninthatcase,in
the blood, fermentation, coagulation, enzamative reaction and
haemolysiswouldensue.
325.
FurtherPw20Pawaralsoadmittedthatintheatmosphere
aswellasthevicinitytherearedifferentmicroorganismsexisting. He
cannot comment whether a glass of juice is kept open, without any
coverorlid,thentheprocessofspoilingthejuicewillstart.PW20also
statedthatheheardthatbeerismanufacturedbyfermentationprocess.
Fermentation process is common and natural in everyday's life i.e.
because of yeast. Yeast is a microorganism and is available every
where,whenonetouches,inair.Afteropeningthecoverorlidofthe
juicebottle,thejuiceexposestotheair. PW20unabletocomment
whether if the fermentation is caused in respect of the juice, there
wouldbealcoholfermentation.Accordingtohim,iftheconditionsare
right,bloodwouldferment. Hecannotsaythequantityofoxalatein
...166/
..166..
Judgment
gramsusedinphial. Hepresumedthatquantityofoxalateinphialis
correctasperthesizeofphial.Evenhecannottellhowmuchquantity
oftheoxalateisrequiredfortheparticularofbloodinC.C.
326.
PW20alsoadmittedthatprotocolisdefinedaswhatsort
ofcare,precautionandprocedureistobefollowingwhiledrawingthe
bloodsample. Healsostatedthatmicroorganismarenotvisibleby
neckedeye. Accordingtohim,atonesideofstickingplaster,thereis
adhesivegumexisting. Adhesivesideofthestickingplasterispasted
withthebottleorphialatthetimeofwrappingit.PW20alsostatedin
crossexaminationthatthewardboyhadcutthestickingplasterfrom
therollforwrappingthebottle.Thetimewasnotnoted.Twophials
werewrappedandsealedbywardboywithin2to3minutestime.PW
20alsoadmittedthattheconstabletowhomhedeliveredthesampleis
supposedtobekeepthecustodyofthesampletillthesamplereachesto
theC.A.
327.
PW20 Dr. Pawar also admitted that as per the memo
(Exh.97),Bandrapolicerequestedhimtotakebloodsample. Heput
the time 03.00 p.m. below the signature. He also did the clinical
examinationoftheaccused.
328.
AccordingtoPW20,5to6minutestimeisrequiredtonote
theentryinregisterand4minutestimeisrequiredtofillformAand
Btogether. PW20statedthathestartedextractingthebloodfrom
Salmanaround3.00p.m.AccordingtoPW20,asperExh.102,thetime
ofsealingiswrittenas02.25p.m.WitnessalsostatedthatitistheEPR
...167/
..167..
Judgment
numberandtimewaswrittenwhilepreparingthenumber.FurtherPW
20admittedinExh.102,timeofdrawingthebloodmentionedas02.30
p.m.whichiscorrect.
329.
Ld.AdvocateMr.Shivadevehementlysubmittedthatthere
isadiscrepancyabouttimingofdrawingblood.Itispertinenttonote
that Salman Khan also admitted u/s.313 of the Cr. PC that in J.J.
Hospitalbloodwasextracted.SalmanKhanneverstatedu/s.313ofthe
Cr.P.C.thatDr.Pawardrewbloodfortwotimes.Evenifthereappears
any discrepancy about the time mentioned in the case paper about
drawingbloodofSalman,Ifindthatthatwouldnotvitiatethecaseof
prosecution, when accused admitted u/s.313 of the Cr. P.C. about
extractingthebloodbyDr.Pawar.
330.
FurtherPW20Pawaralsostatedthatthelakhismeltedby
awardboyinfrontofhimatthetimeofdoingtheseal.1minutetime
wasrequiredforwardboyforputtingthelakhonphialandalsoputting
theseal. Duringthecourseofevidence,thewitnessisshownSecond
Edition Book of Writer Shri V.V. Pillay of Comprehensive Medical
Toxicology.Hewasshownpara3(a).Heagreewiththecolumn3(a)
whichisSeveralantihistaminic,decongestant,multivitamin,andcough
syrupscontainvaryingpercentageofalcohol(2to25%).Mouthwashis
baseofalcohol.HealsoagreesthatSolvenforaftershaves,colognes,
mouthwashesandperfumes,thealcoholcontentintheseisvariably(15
to80%).
...168/
331.
..168..
Judgment
Thedefencealsoputsomecomputerizedresearchpapersto
PW20. He stated that he is not aware about blood alcohol

concentrationinplasmawereapproximately11%higherthanthewhole
blood and those in supernatant sample were about 5% higher.
Accordingtowitness,hehasnotreadtheresearchpaper. Itwasalso
suggestedtothewitnessthatsomehospitalsmayonlytesttheserum.
Producing blood alcohol concentration for blood sample, one may
produce blood alcohol count levelsupto25% higher than the whole
bloodresults.FurtheraccordingtoPW20hehasnotreadtheresearch
papers.FurtherPW20isalsonotawarewhenitwassuggested,when
humanblooddecomposes,naturallyoccurringmicrobescanchangethe
sugarinbloodinalcohol. Thisisthesametypeoffermentationthat
occursinthemanufacture ofbeverage andalcohol. Further portion
nowshowntohimisfromresearchpapersasfollows:
Clearly,theriskoffermentationwillvaryaccordingtothe
mountofpreservativeused.However,itwillalsobe
directlyaffectedbythelengthoftimethesampleisstored,
andbythetemperatureatwhichitisstored.Sodium
Fluorideof1percentorlessconcentrationisstableforonly
abouttwodays,Dr.Kay'sarticleconcludesthatlessthan1
percentsodiumfluoride(100mg/10mlblood)canallow
microorganismstogrowandcanalsoinhibitglycolysisand
thusprovideandthusprovideglucosefortheunkilled
microorganismstofermentintoalcohol. Dr.Dubowsky,
however,reflectscommonlawenforcementpracticein
recommendingthat15mg/10mlbloodissufficient. An
Australianstudyconcludedthat1percentofsodium
...169/
..169..
Judgment
fluoridewastheonlypreservativeandstrengthfound
effectiveinpreventingfermentation.Thatstudyalso
concludedthat,despitethepresenceofpreservative.
significantincreaseintheconcentrationofethylalcohol
mayoccurwhenbloodsamplestakenatautopsyareleftat
roomtemperaturefortwodays.
332.
PW20Dr.Pawarstatedthatpapershowntohimisfrom
researchpaperandheisnotexpertinForensicMedicine.
333.
Further portion shown to him from research paper as
follows:
Ashasbeenpreviouslyindicated,theproductionof
alcoholinbloodcausedbyamongotheragencies,yeasts
suchasCandidaalbicans,isaconstantproblem.As
researchershaveobserved.C.albicansiscommonlyfound
inman,usuallyintheoralcavityanddigestivetract,and
lesscommonlyinthevaginaltractofwomen.Though
generallyharmless,itcanmanifestitselfasapathogen.The
organismhasbeencalledthemostcommonandmost
seriouspathogenofman. Thelegalramificationsofthis
areobvious.Ifanorganismcommontomaniscapableof
producingethylalcoholinstoredblood,thequestionarises.
Aretheresultsofalcoholanalysisreflectiveofan
individual'slevelofintoxicationorposttesting
fermentation?
...170/
334.
..170..
Judgment
Further PW20 Pawar stated that he cannot agree or
disagree with the portion. He is not a postgraduate person and

therefore,cannotopineaboutwhathasmentionedintheportionwhich
isreproducedabove.
335.
Duringcrossexamination,PW20statedthathecannotsay
iffermentationoccursinthebloodthentowhatextentpercentageof
blood would notice in the blood analysis. He cannot say candida
albicansisoneoftheorganismshownforfermentationofbloodsample
insidethetube.PW20statedthatbloodgetsfermented,thenitwould
producethealcoholanditispossiblethatitcancausefalsehightest
resultofthealcohol. Accordingtohim,haemolysisisthebreakageof
theredbloodcellsmembraneandhaemolysisisacommonoccurrence
inbloodsample.Itmaycausefermentation.
336.
According to him, Sodium fluoride is one of the
preservative preventing fermentation and glycolysis in the blood.

During evidence, Civil Medical Code was shown to the witness and
according to him, he has not read it. There are directions given in
MaharashtraCivilMedicalCodethatinprohibitioncases,theMedical
Officersshouldtake5mg.ofsodiumfluorideand15mgofpotassium
oxalateasanticoagulantfor5ml.ofthebloodtobecollectedinit.
337.
AccordingtoPW20hehadtaken3ccbloodsampleeach
inintwophialstotaling6cc.BecauseofthepracticefollowinginJ.J.
Hospital,hehadnotput5ccofbloodinthephial.Accordingtohim,in
ordertodrawcorrectconclusion,itisnecessarytosendtwophialsto
ChemicalAnalyzer.
...171/
338.
..171..
Judgment
PW20Pawarstatedthatifthereisnopreservativeinthe
phial and phial is stored without refrigeration, then decomposition

would start. He also admitted that Sodium Fluoride is one of the
preservative used for prevention of glycolysis which may prevent
fermentation. He cannot tell what changes would occur in sample
havingnosodiumfluorideusedaspreservative.
339.
Further in crossexamination PW20 stated that Exh.100
andExh.101arethe labelsaccordingtohim. Exh.100AndExh.101

werenothavingsealorlakh.Healsostatedhehasnotmentionedin
Exh.102thattwophialsweresealed.
340.
Further PW20 also admitted that there is no distinction
writtenonthetwolabelsastowhichphialishavingoxalateandwhich
phial is a plain phial. He cannot say as to whether Exh.100 and
Exh.101arethelabelswerepastedonphialshavingoxalateorpasted
onplainphial. Thereisnomarkingonthe plainphialwhetherthe
preservativehasaddedornot.FurtherthereisnoendorsementinForm
AandBthatsealedenvelopswere sentandalsoin EPRregister
(Exh.99). Furtherthereisnomentionin(Exh.99)EPRRegisterthat
two sealed phials were handed over to PC 2985 and his
acknowledgmenttakenontheregister.Headmitsthatitisnecessaryto
write the buckle number and signature is to be obtained in whose
custodysaidsampleofbloodisdelivered. PSISalunke(PW22)was
presentatthattime. InExh.98,itwaswrittenthatthebloodsample
washandedovertoPC2985andPSISalunke.
...172/
341.
..172..
Judgment
PW20Pawaralsoadmittedthatthereisnoendorsementin
thecasepapers(Exh.98)thatthesamplewassealedandwashanded
overtoPC2985andPSISalunkeandalsonoendorsementinformA
andBtothateffect.
342.
Incrossexamination,suggestionsweregiventoPW20that
hedidnotfollowtherulesandregulationsandheisdeposingfalsely
thatheobtainedthebloodsamplefromSalmanandalsosealedinhis
presence.Furtherhehasnotstatedintheevidencerecordedbeforethe
MetropolitanMagistrate,Bandra,thathehadobtainedverbalconsent
fromSalmanforextractingthebloodsample.Healsostatedthatitdid
nothappenthattwosealedphialsandformAandBwereputinone
envelop which was sealed by lakh. It is pertinent to note that the
defenceneverputsuggestiontothesaidwitnessthattheaccusednever
consumedanyalcohol.
343.
PW22VijaySalunketookSalmanKhanon28.09.2002to
J.J.Hospitalformedicalexaminationforbloodalcoholtest. Healso
identifiedreport(Exh.97).Accordingtohim,MedicalOfficerdrawnthe
bloodfromSalmanattherequestofBandrapolice.Afterextractionthe
blood sample was given by Medical Officer in the possession of
Constable to deliver the said envelop in to the possession of PW27
Shengal.Incrossexaminationhestatedthathedoesnotrecollectthe
name of constable to whom the blood sample was delivered by the
Medical Officer after extracting from Salman Khan. PW22 also
admittedinthecrossexaminationthatinhispresence,theconstable
...173/
..173..
Judgment
has handed over the blood sample to PW27 Shengal. So it is

establishedonrecordthatafterextractionbloodsamplewasgivento
PW27Shengal.
344.
PW21SharadBapuBoradehadbroughtthebloodsample
ofaccusedtoC.A.Laboratory.Asperhisversion,investigatingofficer
ShriKadamgavehimtwosealedenvelopes.Oneenvelopewashaving
twobottlesandoneenvelopewashavingaletter. Exh.80isthesaid
letter.PW21alsomadeendorsementonthebackoftheletterExh.80
thathereceivedtheletterofPoliceStationalongwithForm'A'&'B'and
alsohedepositedtwosealedbottlesofblood. Theendorsementisat
Exh.80A. Healsosignedbelowtheendorsement. Healsoobtained
the acknowledgment from the Laboratory for delivering the bottles.
Duringcrossexamination, Exh.102 showntothewitnesswhichisa
letterwrittenbyCasualtyMedicalOfficertoC.A.Thereceivingclerk
putanendorsementaboutthereceiptofthebottlesandalsohisbuckle
number was mentioned in the endorsement made by him. PW21
statedthattheformwasreturnedtohim,whichhesubmittedtothe
PoliceStation. Generally,theletterswrittentotheC.A.fromPolice
Stationneednotreturntopolicestation.Inmyopinionthatwouldnot
hamperthecaseoftheprosecution. PW21wasalsoexaminedinthe
CourtofMetropolitanMagistrate.HedeniedthatRajendraKadamgave
him one sealed envelope and two sealed bottles. According to him
portionmarked'A'readovertohimfromhisdepositionisnotcorrect.
Healsodeniedthathewasaskedtocarrythebottlesinironbox.He
contradictedportionmarked'B'.Hestatedthatitdidnothappenthat
thesamplebottleswerenotcoveredwiththeseal.Healsocontradicted
...174/
..174..
Judgment
portionmarked'C'.InmyopinionthoughPW21contradictedportion
marked 'A' to 'C' from his evidence recorded in the Court of
MetropolitanMagistrate,thatwouldnotaffecthisevidencebeforeme
onmaterialfactofcarryingthebloodsampletoKalina.
345.
Another crucial evidence is of PW18 Assistant Chemical
AnalyserDattatrayBhalshankar.Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadeheavily
criticizedthesaid evidence. According told.Advocate Mr.Shivade,
after going through the entire evidence, one may find that, PW18
Bhalshankarisnotanexpert,hasnoqualificationofanexpert,didnot
take proper precautions. There is discrepancy about the seals and
methodofanalysis. Theld.SPPwouldcontendthatnowhereduring
crossexaminationthewitnesshasbeenconfrontedaboutanylapsin
taking precaution in actual analysis of the blood sent to him for
analysis. According to Mr. Gharat, ld. SPP, the rule of evidence is
repeated that when a particular thing is required to be done in a
particularmanner,presumptionisthat,itisdoneandperformedinthat
particularmanneronly. Accordingtohim,iftheothersidewantsto
rebutthesame,theonusisupon themtoshowthat,thatparticular
thingisnotdoneornotperformedinthatparticularwayandthereis
lapseintheperformanceoftheduty.
346.
AspertheversionofPW18Bhalshankar,intheyear2001,
he came to Mumbai as an Assistant Chemical Analyzer in Forensic

Science Laboratory. He has analyzed 1000 cases till 2002. On
30.09.2002,hehadreceivedabloodbottlealongwiththeletterfrom
BandraPoliceStation.FormAandBwerealsosentalongwiththe
...175/
..175..
Judgment
saidletter.Accordingtohim,itbearsstampofhisofficeonthesame
letteraboutreceivingtheletterofBandraPoliceStation,theanalysisof
the blood wassought by Bandra Police Station in order to ascertain
percentageofthealcoholinthebloodsamplesentforanalysis.
347.
The evidence of PW18 further reveals that he also
ascertainedwhetherformAorBwereattachedwiththeletteror
not.Accordingtohim,thebloodphialwasfoundsealed.Thesealwas
foundintact.HealsoputthenumberAL171/02onthesaidletter.
Hesignedtheletterafterascertainingaboutthesealedbottlewhetherit
wasintactornot. Thenotingisinhishandwritingontheletterone
sealedphialsentintactasperthecopysent(bloodintwophials).
PW18alsoaffixedtwolabelsontheletterdated28.09.2002removed
fromthebloodbottle.Thelabelswereremovedfromthebloodbottle
andaffixedontheletterdated28.09.2002formB.
348.
PW18 Dr. Bhalshankar also deposed that after receiving
the blood phial, it was kept in the fridge. On 01.10.2002 PW18

analyzed the blood phial and used the modified diffusion oxidation
method. Pw18alsomeasured the quantity of the blood which was
admeasuring4ml.Accordingtohim,thepreservativewasaddedinthe
bloodphial.Healsoconductedmarpholintest.Healsotookthenoting
of the test. According to him, the test result was found positive.
Accordingtohim,hethenstartedanalysisofthebloodtoascertainthe
percentageofthealcohol.
...176/
349.
..176..
Judgment
PW18 Bhalshankar found 62 milligrams (Mg) of ethyl
alcoholinthebloodwhichwasanalyzedbyhim.Accordingtohim,62
mg.ofethylalcoholwasfoundin100ml.oftheblood.Ingeneral30
milligrams(mg)ethylalcoholmightbefoundinthebloodofhuman
being.Percentageofthemethylalcoholmaybeincreasedupto40to42
mg.,ifthemedicaltreatmentistakenbytheperson.PW18prepared
thereport(Exh.81).
350.
IncrossexaminationPW18Bhalshankarstatedthathewas
working in Prohibition Department between 2003 to 2008 at Pune.

Furtherhestatedthathecannotsayhowmanysampleswereanalyzed
byhimtilltodayinhiscareer. Healsoadmittedthatprivatesamples
other than referred by the Government are also received by the
Laboratoryfortheanalysispurpose. Healsoadmittedthatwiththe
advancementofScience,theprocedureofanalysischanges. Healso
admittedthat HeadSpacetechnologyisutilizedtodeterminealcohol
percentage. He also stated that he also heard about the Gas
Chromatography. HecannotsaywhetherLiquidGasChromatography
isalsoamethodusedtodetectexactpercentageofalcoholintheblood.
He cannot say whether Gas Chromatography method is used in
LaboratoryinMumbaisincepriorto2002.HecannotsaywhetherGas
Chromatography method is fairly accurate to determine alcohol
percentage. HealsoadmittedthatChemicalAnalysersworkinginthe
ForensicLaboratoryshouldupdatethemselves. Healsoadmittedthat
hedidnotupdatehimselfinrespectofGasChromatography,LiquidGas
Chromatography and Head Space technology. Further in cross
examination,PW18statedthathedidB.Sc.ingeneralChemistry. In
...177/
..177..
Judgment
1980hehasjoinedasaScientificAssistantinForensicLaboratory.He
has not obtained degree, diploma or certificate course in Forensic
Science.Hedidnotdoanyresearch.Healsoanalyzedthecasesfrom
ExciseDepartment.
351.
PW18 further stated in his evidence that the reaction
mixtureisthefirststageofstartinganalysis.Whilepreparingreaction
mixture,bloodsampleiskeptintherefrigerator. Accordingtohim,
afterpreparingthereactionmixture,onehourperiodisrequiredfor
completingtheprocedureforanalysis.Furtherhecannotsaythetime
whenhebegantopreparereactionmixture. Itisimpossibleforthe
witness to state about the time after a gap of 13 years. He is also
unable to tell when he began to prepare reaction mixture in the
morning, afternoon or evening. Further he cannot tell whether
completionofbloodsampleanalysiswasinthemorning,afternoonor
evening.
352.
During crossexamination PW18 also stated that while
doingtheanalysis,hemadenoting. Atthetimeofevidence,hehad
broughtthenoting.PW18furtherstatedthatthePoliceConstablehad
broughtthebloodsampletohim. ThereisaSectionsituatedonthe
ground floor of the Laboratory for receiving the samples. He then
volunteers that at the first floor the samples are received. He also
verifiedfromseeingthebottlewhetheritiscontainingtheblood.The
ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade submitted that PW20 Dr. Pawar wrapped
sticking plasters from the bottle, how one can notice if bottle was
containingtheblood. PW18admittedthatthereisreferenceofonly
...178/
..178..
Judgment
onebottleintheletter.However,duringfurthercrossexaminationhe
stated that there were two blood bottles wrapped by the tape.
According to him, the blood bottle which was showed to him was
wrappedbyplastictixostrip. Muchwasarguedbyld.AdvocateMr.
ShivadethatDr.Pawarhadwrappedstickingplaster,butPW18stated
abouttheplastictixostripandtherefore,doubtiscreated.Idonotfind
anyforceinthesubmissiononthegroundthatevenifPW18stated
abouttheplastictixostrip,PW18mightbestatingabouttheplastic
tixostripinsteadofstickingplasterthattooafter13yearsperiod.
353.
TheevidenceofPW18Bhalshankarfurtherrevealsthatthe
nameofSalmanKhanwaswrittenonbloodsamplebottle. Healso
admittedthatafterreceivingthesample,thesamplehastobeanalyzed
as expeditiously as possible and if there is a delay, then the sample
woulddeteriorate.AspertheCivilMedicalCode,bloodsampleistobe
sent within 7 days from police station for analysis. In our case, on
28.09.2002bloodsamplewastakenanditwasdepositedinthepolice
station. On30.09.2002bloodsampleofaccusedwassenttoC.A.in
Laboratory. On30.09.2002thebloodsamplewaskeptinfridge. On
01.10.2002PW18analyzedtheblood.Soitcanbesaidthattherewas
nodelayforanalyzingthesample.
354.
PW18 also admitted that there was no mention on the
labelthatpreservativewasaddedornot.Accordingtohim,hecameto
know from the papers that the blood of Salman was extracted on
28.09.2002.PW18furtherstatedincrossexaminationthattheblood
isextractedandwithoutaddingpreservativetheblood,theblood
...179/
..179..
Judgment
lastsfortheperiodoftwodays,ifproperlysealedbytheDoctor
who extracted the blood. It is pertinent to note that PW20 Dr.
PawarhadsealedthebottlesandalsoPW18Bhalshankaralsonoticed
thebloodbottlesintact.
355.
PW18alsostatedthatSodiumfluorideisapreservativeto
beaddedinthebloodsample. TherewasnoreferenceaboutSodium
Fluorideinthepaper.DuringevidenceabookofGarriori'sMedicolegal
AspectsofAlcohol,6th Edition,PageNo.285,10.4wasshowntothe
witness. PW18 stated that he is not in agreement with 10.4,
Preservation of Biological Specimens, Sodium Fluoride has
historicallybeenusedtopreventmicroorganismsfromcausingthe
lossorgainofethanolinbiologicalspecimens.FurtherPW18was
alsoinagreementwiththepropositions10.4inthebookofGarriori's
MedicolegalAspectsofAlcohol,Thesereportsindicatedthatatroom
temperature sodium fluoride did not prevent the production of
someethanol.
356.
On the day of analysis,PW18 Bhalshankar removed the
tapeandsawtwobloodbottles. Hemeasuredthebloodinboththe
bottlesbysamepipette.Therewasmilimetremarkingonthepipette.
4mlbloodwasmeasured.AccordingtoPW20Dr.Pawar,hewithdrew
6c.c. PW18alsostatedthatitisnotalwaysthatthereusedtobe
difference between quantity of blood sent by Medical Officer for
analysisandthebloodnoticedatthetimeofanalysis. PW18further
statedthatinallcasesthereusedtobedifferenceinthequantityof
bloodsentforexaminationandatthetimeofmeasuringitforanalysis.
...180/
357.
..180..
Judgment
Ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade argued much on the said
difference. It is pertinent to note that the blood was measured by

pipette. There must be one or two drops of the blood might be
remained in the pipette or there may be some minor difference in
calibrationofthesyringefordrawingthebloodwiththecalibrationof
measuring the blood. It is pertinent to note that 0.5 ml blood is
necessaryfordefusedoxidationmethodtest. PW18alsotook0.5ml
bloodsampleoutofthebloodsample. Soevenifthereappearstobe
somedifferenceinthequantityofbloodsentandreceived,thatwillnot
vitiate the blood analysis. Dr. Mahal a landmark authority in the
processofanalysisinhispaperalsostatedthat0.5mlbloodsampleis
usedformodifieddiffusionoxidationmethod.Furtherthereisalsoan
endorsementonExh.102 letter sentbyDr. Pawarto the Laboratory.
ThereisalsoanendorsementbyPw18onthesaidletter(Exh.102),
onesealedphial,Sealintactaspercopy.(Bloodintwophials).Even
thereisalsoanendorsementofconstablebuckleno.20419thatsealed
bottlesweredeposited.Mucharguedbyld.AdvocateMr.Shivadethat
in (Exh.80) letter sent by PW27 Investigating Officer Shengal to
ChemicalAnalyzerthatinthesaidletteritismentionedaboutsealed
bottle of the blood and sealed envelop is sent along with Constable
buckle no.20419 (PW21). According to ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade,
whetherbloodsamplewasinonebottleortwobottlessenttoC.A.In
viewoftheevidencebroughtonrecord,thereweretwobottlessent
wrappedtogetherbystickingplasterandevenonExh.102,thereisan
endorsementofPW18aboutbloodintwophialsandonesealedphial,
sealintact.Soitgoestoshowthattwobottlesweretogetherwrapped
bystickingplasteranditwassealed.
...181/
358.
..181..
Judgment
PW18furtherstatedincrossexaminationthatheanalyzed
thebloodbottles.HefurtherstatedthattheDoctorextractingtheblood
should send only one blood sample and also should not incorrectly
preservethebloodsample.HealsoadmittedthatthereareGovernment
instructionsthatSodiumfluorideshouldbeaddedinthebloodsample.
There is no mention in Exh.102 that Sodium fluoride was added as
preservativeinthebloodsample.Itwillbeaseriousmistake,ifSodium
Fluorideisnotaddedinthebloodsample.
359.
PW18alsostatedthathaemolysismeans,therewouldbe
coagulationofthebloodandinanalysisofthebloodwherehaemolysis
occurs,resultwouldnotbeaccurate.Itispertinenttonotethatinour
case,thephialinwhich3ccbloodwastransferredbyPW20Dr.Pawar
is a labelled bottle having oxalate preservative. Potassium Oxalate
prevents haemolysis. PW18 further stated that after extracting the
bloodfromthepersonandafteritcomesincontactwithair,theblood
wouldcoagulate. ItispertinenttonotethatPW20Dr.Pawarafter
extracting the blood immediately transferred the blood from syringe
intothephialhavingoxalatepreservative.Sointhatsituation,question
ofcoagulationwillnotarise.
360.
PW18Bhalshankarfurtherstatedthatinmorpholinetest
onecannotascertainthepercentageofalcoholintheblood. Healso
statedthatmorpholinetestisuselessforascertainingthepercentageof
alcoholinblood. Muchwasarguedbyld.AdvocateMr.Shivadethat
PW18 Bhalshankar deposed in the evidence before Metropolitan
...182/
..182..
Judgment
Magistrate that he used the Morpholine test and does not mention
aboutmodifieddiffusionoxidationmethod.Pw18deniedthatanalysis
wasmadebyhimbymorpholinetest.Hecontradictedportionmarked
Ainthecertifiedcopyofhisevidence(Exh.128)producedonrecord.
Itispertinenttonotethatinhisreport(Exh.81),thereismentionthat
modifieddiffusionoxidationmethodwasusedandmorpholinetestwas
positive. So modified diffusion oxidation method was utilized to
ascertainthepercentageofthealcoholintheblood.Inmyopinion,the
evidence of PW18 cannot be thrown away on the ground that he
deniedtohavestatedbeforetheMetropolitanMagistrateaboutdoing
analysisbymorpholinetest.
361.
TheevidenceofPW18BhalshankarfurtherrevealsthatDr.
Mahalhaddevelopedthemethodofmodifieddiffusionoxidation.Dr.
Mahal had brought in existence the said method and he was the
DirectorofForensicScienceLaboratory.Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivade
vehemently submitted that PW18 also did not state correctly the
formulas. Even ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade stated that PW18
BhalshankardidnotgothroughthepapersofDr.Mahal.Muchargued
wasld.AdvocateforaccusedthatPW18Bhalshankarisunabletotell
whetherthephialwassterileornot. Itispertinenttonotethatthe
labelledphialwasprovidedfortransferringthebloodafterextraction.
Itispresumedthatthelabelledphialswereproperinordertoreceive
the blood for collection. Pw18 Bhalshankar also unable to tell the
strengthofSulphuricacidandatwhatstageofanalysisiodineisused.
AccordingtoMr.Shivade,PW18doesnotknowabouttheidometric
andisometrictitration.Hestatedthatthetitrationwhichisconducted
...183/
..183..
Judgment
in the process of modified diffusion oxidation method is called as

oxidationtitration.AccordingtoPW18,aftercompletingtheprocessof
oxidation,potassiumiodideistobeadded.
362.
FurtherPW18Bhalshankaralsostatedthatthesolutions
which are used for analysis are prepared earlier before process of
analysis and the solutions prepared can be utilized for one or two
weeks. Pw18 is unable to tell the name of the person who has
prepared the solution before analysis. According to PW18
Bhalshankar,thepersonwhowasknowingthereasonforwhatpurpose
thesolutionspreparedwere,tobeutilized.Potassiumdichromateand
sulfuric acid were the solutions. Pw18 also stated that he had not
preparedthesolutionofpotassiumdichromateandwhateversolution
wasavailable,heusedit. Noquestionwasaskedtothewitnessthat
solutionswereunfitforanalysis.Whenaparticularthingisrequiredto
be done in a particular manner, presumption is that it is done and
performedinthatparticularmanneronly. Sowhateversolutionsare
preparedinLaboratorywerepreparedinaparticularmanner,required
intheLaboratory.
363.
There was grueling crossexamination of PW18
Bhalshankar.Questionswereaskedtohimabouttheweighingbalance
usedintheLaboratory.PW18isalsounabletotelldifferencebetween
mechanical and electric balance. The ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade
contendedthattheLaboratoryatKalinaisnothavingtheISOmark.
PW18 Bhalshankar is unable to tell whether Directorate of Forensic
Science,Mumbai,isnotaccreditedtotheNationalAccreditationBoard
...184/
..184..
Judgment
fortestingandcalibrationinLaboratories.FurtherPW18Bhalshankar
is unable to tell the difference between qualitative analysis and
quantitative analysis. Pw18 also stated that modified diffusion
oxidationmethodwasusedfirst,thereafterLiquidGasChromatography
and Gas Chromatography was introduced in 1997. Thereafter Head
SpaceTechnologywasused.Hecannottellwhetherinwhichcategory,
accuracywasincreasedinalcoholtestexamination.Heisalsounable
totellhow0.1NsolutionofSodiumdichromateispreparedandalso
0.5SodiumThiosulphatesolutionwithoutgoingthroughthebook.
364.
noreliancecanbeplacedontheevidenceofPW18Bhalshankarashe
cannottellhowheconductedthemodifieddiffusionoxidationmethod
test.ItispertinenttonotethatPW18wassubjectedtogruelingcross
examination. He is the person who was going to retire shortly and
workinginForensicScienceLaboratorysincemanyyears. Generally,
ChemicalAnalysersarenotsubjectedtocrossexaminationinviewof
thefactthattheirreportsaredirectlyadmissibleinevidenceasproved
u/s.293oftheCr.P.C.Sounderthegruelingcrossexamination,ifthe
witnessisunabletotelltheformulasandalsoaboutthetest,thatdoes
notmeanthatheisnotexpertanddoesnotknowanything. Hehad
conductedthetestwhichisrequiredtobedoneinaparticularmanner
and presumption is that, it is done and performed in that particular
manneronly.Therefore,inmyopinion,evenifthewitnessunderthe
heatofcrossexaminationisunabletotelltheformulasorthemethod,
nodoubtcanberaisedagainsthim.Thereisnoreasonforhimtostate
lieagainsttheaccused.Itisalsoimportanttonotethatthewitnesshad
...185/
..185..
Judgment
broughtthenotingoftheexaminationatthetimeofhisevidence. It
wasneversuggestedtothewitnessthat modifieddiffusionoxidation
methodhasprovedtobeawrongmethodfordeterminingthealcohol
percentage.Evenitwasneversuggestedthattheprocedureappliedby
thewitnessisincorrect. Merelybecauseadvancedtechniquesarenot
used,opinioncannotbefaulted,unlessthetechniqueusedisfaulty.
365.
PW18Bhalshankarfurtherstatedincrossexaminationthat
he cannot say who had made calibration of the apparatus and

equipmentsattherelevanttime. Healsocannottellwhetheratthe
relevant time, calibration of apparatus and equipments used in the
presentcasewasdoneornot. Itwasalsoaskedtothewitnessthat
there are marking on glass pipette, burette and measuring cylinder.
FurtherPW18cannotsayduringpassageoftime,markingsgradually
become faint. It is never suggested to the witness during cross
examinationthattherewerefaintmarkingsontheapparatus.
366.
Further PW18 Bhalshankar also unable to tell about
sublimationoftheprocess.Accordingtohim,iodinesolutioniskeptin
darkcolourbottleandhealsocannottellwhyiodinesolutionisnot
keptinnormalglassbottle. Healsocannottellwhetherstronglight,
nitriteandcopperirons,catalyzesintheprocessofreaction.According
to him, titration using Sodium Thiosulphate is known as idometric
titration. Healsoadmittedthatcolouroftheindicatorneartheend
pointdependsupontheperceptionofindividual.FurtherPW18unable
totellwhethertheperceptionofcolourismisjudged,theninthatevent,
there would be error in the result. He also admitted that different
...186/
..186..
Judgment
personshavedifferentsensitivitytothecolours. Headmittedthatif
volumeismisread,theendresultwouldbeincorrect.Healsoadmitted
thatbyseeingthevolumeeitherinpipetteorburettetheangleinwhich
theanalystsees,itisimportant. Healsoadmittedthatiftheangleis
faulty, then the reading of the volume would be faulty. He also
admitted that while reading the volume in burette scale, the upper
readingandthelowerreadingintheburette,theconditionoflight
woulddifferintheprocess.andbecauseofthelightingconditionthere
maybeerrorfoundintheresultofanalysis. Healsoadmittedthatif
twodifferentsolutionsaretransferredbyonepipette,thentwodifferent
solutionsmaybecontemplatedandifwrongconcentrationsolutionis
used,theendresultwouldbeincorrect. Nothingisputduringcross
examinationofthewitnessthattherewereerrorsmadebyhimduring
analysis.
367.
PW18Bhalshankaralsoadmittedthatifglassapparatusis
notproperlywettedbythesolution,theycanformthedropletonthe
glasssurfaceandinthatexactvolumemeasuringwouldbeimpossible.
No suggestion is given to the witness in crossexamination that no
properprocedurewasfollowedbyhimduringtheanalysis. Nothing
brought on record to show that the apparatus used for analysis was
contaminated.Nosuggestionwasgiventothewitnessthathedidnot
readthereadingproperlyatthetimeofanalysis.
368.
Further PW18 Bhalshankar also stated in cross
examination that during test he had separately measured the blood

quantity of phials by pipette. He cannot say whether he firstly
...187/
..187..
Judgment
measuredthebloodsamplefromthebottlecontainingpreservativeor
fromtheplainbottle.Healsoadmittedthattherewasarubberstopper
existinginthephialnotcontainingthepreservative.Hedeniedthathe
doesnotknowaboutchemicalanalysisandthereportwaspreparedas
perthedirectionofthepolice.Hedeniedthatthebloodsamplewas
contaminatedandnotinapositionoftesting.Hedeniedthattheblood
samplesweresentbackonthefirstdayofreceivingthesamebyhis
officeandthereafterthebottleswerechangedandtamperedbloodwas
senttotheLaboratoryforanalysis.PW18deniedthatonthestrength
oftamperedblood,falsereportwaspreparedbyhim.Iftheevidenceof
PW18Bhalshankarislookedinto,itisfullofifsandbuts.Nowhereit
wassuggestedtoC.A.whetherhehascommittedanylapseintaking
precautioninactualanalysisoftheblood.Forthesakeofrepetitionit
is again said that if a particular thing is required to be done in a
particularmanner,presumptionisthatitisdoneandperformedinthat
particularmanner. Merelybecausethe advancedtechniquesarenot
used,opinioncannotbefaulted,unlessthetechniqueusedisfaulty.
369.
Ld. SPP argued that the deposition is confined to
propositions only not furthering the defence, but only testing the
knowledgeoftheDoctorasanexpert. Accordingtold.SPP,sofaras
theconfrontationoftheDoctorwiththeextractsfromthebooksand
research papers, the same documents have not been produced in
evidenceonrecordandnoeffortismadefirsttoprovethattheperson
whoseopinionisshowntothewitnessisanexpertandhisopinionis
acclaimedopinioninthefieldacceptedbytheexpert.Accordingtold.
SPP, in absence of such evidence, there is no proof that authority
...188/
..188..
Judgment
referredtoisreallytheauthority.Theld.SPPreliedon1997SC1307
Pratap Mishra v/s. State of Orissa and Bhagwandas v/s State of
Rajasthan AIR 1957 Supreme Court 589. It is held in the said
judgmentsthat,itcannotbesaidthatopinionsoftheseauthorswere
given in regard to the circumstances exactly similar to those which
arose in the case or before us or is this a satisfactory way of the
disposingofevidenceofanexpertunlessthepassageswhicharesought
todiscredithisopinion,areputtohimestablishingthattheauthorsare
standardandtheiropinionsaresustainedinthefield.Accordingtold.
SPP,knowledgeoftheC.A.hasbeentestedduringcrossexamination,
as if knowledge of a research scholar, the same is not sufficient to
discardtheevidenceunlesstheactualfaultisfoundinhisevidence.
370.
ConsideringtheentireevidenceofPW18Dr.Bhalshankar
and though he cannot be in a position to state process of modified

diffusionoxidationmethodandalsoaboutformulas,itcannotbesaid
that the evidence of C.A. is doubtful. Since long he is doing the
analysis.Inourcase,PW18hasalongexperiencewhileworkinginthe
Laboratoryandundergruelingcrossexaminationheisunabletotell
about formulas, modified diffusion oxidation method, but in my
opinion, that would not render his evidence doubtful. There is no
reason for PW18 to speak otherwise against the accused. The
suggestionsgivenbydefencetoPW18duringcrossexaminationthat
thebloodsamplesweresentbackalongwiththeletteronthefirstday
ofreceivingthesameintheofficeandthebottleswerechangedand
tamperedbloodwassenttoLaboratoryfor analysisisdevoidofany
substanceandcannotbeaccepted.ThereisnoreasonfortheForensic
ScienceLaboratorytodosuchallegedactagainsttheaccused.
...189/
371.
..189..
Judgment
According to ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade, Sodium Fluoride
preservativewasnotaddedintheblood. However,thebloodwhich
wastransferredafterextractingfromaccusedbyPW20Dr.Pawarin
the phial containing oxalate which is a preservative preventing
coagulation. The samples were also sealed properly. PW18
Bhalshankar also found seal intact. Ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade also
contended that proper custody of the bottles is not established.
According to him, the manner in which the sample was kept in the
policestationisalsosuspicious. ItisarguedthataccordingtoPW21
Borade,Carrier,PSIKadamgavehimthesamplebottlewhichwaskept
nearalmerainthecommonhallwhereothersampleslikeviscerawere
kept.PW21Boradealsoadmittedthattherewasnorefrigeratororair
conditionerinthepolicestation.
372.
According to ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade, Investigating
OfficerPW27Shengalmadematerialimprovementthatthereisfridge
in his anti chamber and bottle of blood was kept in the fridge.
Accordingtotheld.SPP,theevidenceoftheDoctorfindscorroboration
fromtheevidenceofPW21Boradewhocarriedthebloodsamplesto
C.A.Accordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,sincethefridgewasintheanti
chamberofPW27,ignoranceofPW21Boradecannotbedisbelieved.
373.
PW18Bhalshankarhasstatedthatthebloodifextracted
andwithoutaddingpreservative,thebloodlastsfortwodaysifproperly
sealed by the Doctor who extracted the blood. There is no cross
examinationonthisparticularevidence.AspertheCivilMedicalCode,
...190/
..190..
Judgment
bloodsampleistobesentwithin7daysfrompolicestationforanalysis.
In our case, on 28.09.2002 blood sample was taken and it was
depositedinthepolicestation.On30.09.2002bloodsampleofaccused
wassenttoC.A.inLaboratory. On30.09.2002thebloodsamplewas
keptinfridge.On01.10.2002PW18analyzedtheblood.Soitcanbe
saidthattherewasnodelayforanalyzingthesample.Itispertinentto
notethaton28.09.2002bloodsamplewastaken,thebloodsamplewas
transferred to the labelled phial having oxalate which prevents
coagulation. The blood remained whole in tact. According to Mr.
Shivade, by not adding Sodium Fluoride as preservative in blood
sample,thepossibilityofbloodfermentationandproducingthealcohol
cannotberuledout. Itispertinenttonotethatthebloodsampleis
havingoxalateasapreservativewhichpreventscoagulationandalso
sealedproperly.Foraperiodoftwodays,thebloodsampleremained
inpolicestation.Thereappearstobecontradictoryevidenceregarding
keeping the sample in the fridge. According to PW18 Bhalshankar,
ChemicalAnalyser,.30mgistheethylalcohollevelmightbefoundin
thebloodofhumanbeing.Thepercentageoftheethylalcoholmaybe
increasedupto40to42mgifthemedicaltreatmentistakenbythe
person.ThedefenceneversuggestedtoPW18thattheaccusedwason
medication.Thebloodwasextractedon28.09.2002andsenttoKalina
on30.09.2002.Inlaboratory,itwaskeptinfridgetillitsanalysis.So
inbetweentheperiod,eveniftheprocessoffermentationisstarted,it
willnotbedoubledthannormal.Itispertinenttonotethattheaccused
hadconsumedthealcoholatabout01.00to01.30a.m.andatabout
03.00p.m.hisbloodwasextracted.Aftertheincidenttheaccusedwas
notarrestedtill10.30a.m.andtherefore,hisbreathanalysistestwas
...191/
..191..
Judgment
not done, nor his blood was taken immediately after the accident.
However,sometracesofthealcoholnoticedinhisblood.Iftheaccused
wouldhavearrestedimmediatelyaftertheincidentandifhisbloodwas
extracted, then the percentage of the alcohol in his blood would be
more.AspertheCivilMedicalCode,abnormaldelayincollectingthe
bloodrendersthebloodsampleuseless,ifcollectedafterunduedelay,
suchas8to12hours.However,inthelandmarkreportedcaseofState
ThroughPSLodhiColonyVersusSanjeevNanda[(2012)3Supreme
CourtCases(Cri)899,(2012)8SupremeCourtCases450].Inthis
casealso,theaccuseddrovethevehicleBMWinarashandnegligent
manner under intoxication and 6 persons died and one person was
injuredintheincident. Theincidenthadoccurredatabout4.00a.m.
andhisbloodwastakenatabout12.29p.m.However,certainamount
ofalcoholiccontentswerestillfoundinhisbloodtotheextentof0.115
whichwasequivalentto115mgper100mlofblood. Inourcasein
hand,thechargeisunderSection85oftheMotorVehiclesAct.Ifthe
alcohol percentage is more than .30, then Section 85 of the Motor
VehicleActwouldbeattracted. Soevenifforthesakeofargument
somefermentationwouldhavestarted,itwillnotbedoubledthatthe
normalpercentage.Thebottlewashavingoxalatepreservativeandwas
sealedproperly,withintwodaysitwasdespatchedtotheLaboratory.
InLaboratory,bottlewaskeptinfridgetillbloodanalysis.
374.
The ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade contended that if really
SalmanKhanconsumedthealcohol,thenthecomplainantPatilwould
havenoticedthesaidfact.AccordingtoMr.Shivade,inFIR,thereisno
mentionthatSalmanKhanwasunderinfluenceofliquor.Accordingto
...192/
..192..
Judgment
Mr.Shivade,PatilinhisevidencedeposedthatSalmanKhanwasdrunk.
It is pertinent to note that supplementary statement of complainant
PatilwasrecordedbyPW27Shengalon01.10.2002. Thisstatement
was recorded by Shengal when he took charge of the case. His
statement recorded on 01.10.2002 where in there is mentioned that
bodylanguageofSalmanKhanlookslikethathemighthaveconsumed
thealcohol.Furtheritisnotnecessarythatallthedetailsoftheoffence
mustbestatedinFIR.Inthisregard,relianceisplacedonthecaseof
Animireddy Venkata Ramana and others V/s. Public Prosecutor,
HighCourtofAndhraPradesh[2008(4)Mh.L.J.(Cri.)1(Supreme
Court)].Soinviewoftheabovediscussion,evenifcomplainantPatil
didnot mention in FIRthat the accused wasunder the influence of
liquorwhiledrivingthevehicle,evidenceofPatilcannotbediscardedto
thateffectordoubted.ComplainantPatilisimpartial,naturalwitness
happenedtobepresentatthetimeofincident.
375.
Furtheritisalsosubmittedbytheld.AdvocateMr.Shivade
that PW9 Rizwan who was the Manager of Rain Bar, also escorted
Sohel and Salman Khan while leaving the Restaurant. In cross
examination, PW9 Rizwan Rakhangi stated that Salman Khan was
foundwalkingnormallyandalsohedidnotnoticeanysmellofalcohol
from Salman. According to ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade, even PW12
KalpeshVerma,ParkingAssistant,whohappenedtobereceivedthetip
ofRs.500/fromSalmanalsoneverstatedthatSalmanwassmelling
alcohol. PW15 Alok @ Chikky Panday also stated in the cross
examination that after hearing the news of accident he went to the
Salman'shouse. Hehuggedhim. AccordingtohimSalmanwasnot
...193/
..193..
Judgment
smelling alcohol. It appears that PW15 Alok Panday knew Salman

since35yearsandthereforepossiblyheisdeposinginfavourofthe
accused.
376.
According to Mr. Shivade, all these above facts would
demonstratethatSalmanwasnotunderinfluenceofliquor.Furtherld.
AdvocateMr.Shivade,bloodsampleoftheaccusedwasextractedafter
12 hours and it is highly improbable that the accused was smelling
alcoholafter12hours.ItisvehementlysubmittedbyMr.Shivade,ifin
facttheaccusedhasconsumedthequantityofalcohol,thatwouldresult
intestresultproducedbytheaccused.(Bloodsamplecollectedmore
than 12 hours after the alleged consumption). It is impossible to
believe that he could have driven the vehicle all the way upto the
accidentspotwithouthittinganythingandtherouteisabout8kms.,
thecarsparkedonhissideoftheroad,havingover10significantturns
and people and cars crossing the road. I am afraid to accept the
argumentofMr.Shivadeonthegroundthatfindingthealcoholinthe
blood is a conclusive proof to demonstrate that the the person had
consumedthealcohol.EvenifPW9RakhangiandPW12Kalpeshdid
notnoticeanysmell,thatwouldnotestablishthattheaccusedhadnot
consumedthealcohol. FurtheraccordingtoMr.Shivade,ifreallythe
accusedwasunderintoxication,theaccusedcouldhavedashedpriorto
reachingofthespot.Iamafraidtoaccepttheargumentontheground
thatitisextremelydifficulttoassesswhentheliquorwouldshowits
effect.Inthisregard,relianceisalsoplacedonthereportedjudgment
oftheHon'bleApexCourtincaseofStatev/s.SanjeevNanda[(2012)
3SupremeCourtCases(Cri)899].
...194/
..194..
Judgment
26. Afterhavingcriticallygonethroughtheevidence
availableonrecord,wehavenodoubtinourmindthatthe
accidenthadoccurredsolelyandwhollyonaccountofrash
andnegligentdrivingofBMWcarbytherespondent,ata
highspeed,whowasalsointoxicatedatthatpointoftime.
Thisfacthasbeenadmittedbytherespondentaccusedat
theappellatestageintheHighCourtthatattherelevant
pointoftime,therespondentwasdrivingthevehicleand
hadcausedtheaccidentbuteventhen,itwouldbeonlyhis
rashandnegligentact,attractingSection304AIPConly.
Eventhoughitisdifficulttocometotheaforesaid
conclusion,sincehewasinaninebriatedcondition. For
thesimplereasonthathehadalreadydrivenalmost16km
fromtheplacewherehehadstarted,tothepointwherehe
actuallymetwiththeaccidentwithoutencounteringany
untowardincidentwouldnotgoabsolutelyinfavourofthe
respondent.Thereisnoevidenceonrecordthattheyhad
consumedmoreliquorontheirwayalso.Nosuchmaterial
objectswererecoveredfromthevehicle,tosuggestthat
evenwhiledrivingtheywereconsumingliquor.Onemay
failtounderstandifonecoulddrivesafelyforadistanceof
16km,thenwhethertheeffectofintoxicationwouldrise
allofasuddensoastofindtherespondenttotallyoutof
control.Thereisnothingofthatsortbutitcannotbe
deniedthathemusthavebeenalittletipsybecauseofthe
drinkshehadconsumedsometimeback.Itis,indeed,
extremelydifficulttoassessorjudgewhenliquorwould
...195/
..195..
Judgment
showitseffectorwouldbeatitspeak.Itvariesfrom
persontoperson.
377.
Considering the evidence of accused visiting Rain Bar,
thereafterJ.W.MariotandconsideringtheevidenceofMedicalofficer
andAsst.ChemicalAnalyser,Iamoftheopinionthatitcansafelybe
inferred that at a time of driving the vehicle accused was under
intoxication.
F)
378.
Fingerprintevidence:
It is also argued by ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade that the
prosecutionhassuppressedtobringonrecordtheevidenceoffinger
print of the accused. According to Mr. Shivade, PW27 Shengal
admittedinhiscrossexaminationthatthefingerprintsoftheaccused
were taken and Forensic team inspected the vehicle. PW27 in his
crossexamination stated that he had called Forensic team for
examinationofvehicle. PW27furtherstatedthathedoesnotknow
whetherfingerprintswereobtainedfromthecar.PW27hadsentthe
fingerprintstothefingerprintexpert. Hehadnotgivendirectionto
ascertainthefingerprintoftheaccusedonthesteering. Healsodoes
notknowwhetherForensicExperthadtakenthefingerprintfromthe
steering. Sothereisnoevidencewhetherthefingerprintexperthad
collected the fingerprints from the steering or not. On perusal of
panchanamaofspot(Exh.28),panchanamawasdrawnonthespotand
alsoafteropeningthedoor,innerinspectionofthecarwastakenand
alsoRCBook,NewIndiaInsuranceweretakeninpossession. Inthat
process,thepossibilityofcomingincontactwiththesteeringcannotbe
...196/
..196..
Judgment
ruledout.Insuchsituation,theevidenceoffingerprintwouldbeofno
use.Moreover,itisalsonotknownwhetherfingerprintswerecollected
ornotfromthesteering.Soinmyopinionnonproductionofevidence
relatingtofingerprintisnotfataltothecaseofprosecution,whenthere
isadirectevidence on record to showthat accused wasdrivingthe
vehicle.
G)
379.
DeathofNurullaMehboobSharif:
During the course of argument, the ld. Advocate Mr.
ShivadecontendedthatthedeathofNurullaisnotbecauseofdashof
ToyotaLandCruiser,butduetofallingofthecaratthetimeoflifting
car by crane. According to Mr. Shivade, PW11 Mohd. Shaikh was
sleepingneardeceasedNurulla.PW11Mohd.AbdullaShaikhadmitted
thatNurullawassleepingalongwithhim.AccordingtoPW11,Mannu,
Kalim,Muslimwerealsoinjured.Allcriedforhelp.Bakerymen,taxi
driver rescued from beneath the car. In crossexamination PW11
statedthatNurullawassleepingnearhisside.PW11andNurullawere
entangledinthecar. Afteraccident,becauseofthedragging,PW11
foundhimselfandNurullaattheshortdistancefromtheplacewhere
theyweresleeping.Afteraccidentsleepingpositionoftheinjuredwere
shifted. He was lying beneath the car for the period of 10 to 15
minutes. Hedoesnotknowhowcarwaslifted. Whenthecarwas
lifted,PW11andNurullawerecryingforhelp. Theld.AdvocateMr.
Shivademuchharponthisparticularpieceofevidencestatingthattill
thecarwaslifted,Nurullawasalive. Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivade
contendedthatPW8RamAsarePandeystatedinthecrossexamination
thatthecarwastakenawaywiththeaidofcranefromthespotinorder
...197/
..197..
Judgment
toclearthespot. Theinjuredwereaskedtositnearthebakery. He
alsostatedthatwhencartriedtoliftbycrane,bumperofthecarcame
out, thereby car again fell down. So according to ld. Advocate Mr.
Shivade,thepossibilitycannotberuledoutthatNurulladiedbecauseof
fallofcar. PW26Kadamwhodrawnthepanchanamaandwhowas
presentonthespotstatedinthecrossexaminationthatthevehiclewas
liftedwiththehelpofcrane.Thehookofthecranewasappliedtothe
bumperofthecarinordertoliftthecar.Hecannotsaywhetherwhile
liftingthecarbycrane,thebumperwasbrokenandcarfelldownon
theground.Hedeniedthesuggestionthatthebumperofthecarwas
notfallenintheaccident,butitwasfallenwhenthecarwaslifted.PW
26furtherstatedthatthecarwasliftedtotheextentof23ft.with
theaidofcrane. Hecannotsayfromwhichpartofthebumperthe
hookofthecraneslippedaway.Bumperwasbroken.Hedeniedthat
thecarwasliftedagainwiththeaidofcranebyapplyingthehookof
thecranetothegrillbehindthebumper.
380.
It is pertinent to note that Mr. Shivade developed the
argumentofcausingthedeathofNurullabyfallingofcaronthecross
examinationofPW11. Incrossexaminationasstatedabove,PW11
statedthat,tillthecarwaslifted,myselfandNurullawerecrying
forhelp.AccordingtoMr.Shivade,whileliftingthecarbycrane,the
carslippedandhadfallenandinthat,possibilityofdeathofNurulla
cannotberuledout.Itisimportanttonoteherethatinexaminationin
chiefPW11alsodeposedthatNurullawaswithhiminBhabhaHospital
andhewascryinginpain.HowitispossiblethatNurullawasalivein
thehospitalandhewascryinginpain.Furthernosuggestionwasgiven
...198/
..198..
Judgment
totheInvestigatingOfficerPW27ShengalandPW26Kadamwhowas
very present at the time when car was lifted or any other injured
witnessincludingPW11thatthecarwasslippedatthetimeoflifting
bycraneandhadfallenandduetothat,Nurullawasexpired.Soinmy
opinion,itwasanimaginarysubmissionwhichiswithoutanyvalidand
legal evidence. Further which part of the vehicle had fallen on the
whichpartoftheNurullaisalsonotestablishedbydefence.Onperusal
ofthepostmortemreporttheNurullasustainedmultiplecrashinjuries
over head, neck, chest, abdomen. Both arms crushed, skull head
crushed completely, thorax, heart, lung crushed completely. In my
opinionallthesecanbepossiblewhenaseveredashwasgivenbythe
car. Thecar ran over the sleepingNurulla over his head and chest
portion.IfNurullasustainedthesecrushinjuriestheevidenceofPW11
that Nurulla was crying in pain in the hospital cannot be accepted.
EvidenceofPW11(incrossexamination)thattillthe carwaslifted
Nurullawasalsocryingforhelpisalsocannotbeaccepted.Moreover
PW11wasalreadyrescuedbybakerymen,taxidriverfrombeneaththe
car. OnlydeadbodyofNurullawasonthespot. Supposeasperthe
argumentofShriShivadecarwasliftedatadistanceof1to2ft.andit
slippedandagainfallenthenthereisnoevidencetoshowthatbywhich
portionofthecarNurullasustainedinjuries.
381.
PW1SambhaGaudawasawitnessonpanchanama. As
perhisversionmotorcarhadclimbedthreestairs.Theraresidewheel
ofthecaralsosustainedwithblood. Thecarwasfoundinthesame
positionpriortopanchanamaandafterthepanchanamawhenheleft
thespot.Furtherhealsosawcranestandingnearby.Hehadnotseen
...199/
..199..
Judgment
whetherthecarwasremovedwiththehelpofcraneinordertoremove
theinjured. FurtherPW1alsoadmittedthatpolicehadremovedthe
carwiththeaidofcraneinhispresenceandhehadnotseenwhether
thebumperofthecarwasremovedwhenthecranewastouchedtothat
portionatatimeofremovingthecar.Nospecificsuggestionwasgiven
tothesaidwitnessthatthecarhadfallenwhenitwastryingtoliftby
the crane and in that Nurulla was injured. On the perusal of
panchanama(Exh.28)thereismentionedinthepanchanama(Exh.28)
thatnearthebacklefttyreofthevehicleadeadbodywasfound.One
LungiandbloodstainedBaniyanwasalsonoticedonthebody.Further
lefttyrewasalsofoundpuncturedsustainingblood.Soitappearsthat
front left tyre and back tyre ran over the Nurulla in the incident,
crushingtheupperportionofthebodyandinmyopinionthedeathof
Nurullawasonthespot. ThesubmissionofShriShivadecannotbe
acceptedthatNurullamighthavediedwhenthecarslippedatatimeof
liftingbythecrane.Thesaidsuggestionwasnevergiventoanyofthe
witnesses. HenceinmyopinionNurullawasexpiredbecauseofthe
dashandrunningoverhisbodybycarwhenhewassleeping.
382.
TheLd.Adv.ShriShivadefurthercontendedthattherewas
nofootpathandthetarroadextendedtillthestairsoftheAmerican
ExpressCleaners.PW3MunnaandPW4Kalimweresleepingonthe
otala(platform).Mohd.AbdullaShaikh,Nurullaweresleepingnearin
frontoftheAmericanLaundry.InMumbaigenerallythespacebefore
theshopisusedbythepedestriansforwalking.Theinjuredwitnesses
including deceased were sleeping near the American Laundry.
AccordingtoShriShivadetherewasnobloodstainwhatsoeveronthe
...200/
..200..
Judgment
bedsheetorthepillowwasfoundofthedeceased.Thatdoesnotmean
thatNurulladidnotsustainanyinjuriesfromthecar. Itappearsthat
thepillow,bedsheetsdidnotseizebythepolice.Evenpolicedidnot
seizetheBaniyan,UnderwearandtheLungiwornbythedeceasedafter
inquestpanchanama. Furtherduringpanchanama,thebloodsample
alsocollectedfromthebloodaccumulatedonthespot. Soallthese
goestoestablishthatthedeathoftheNurullatookplaceonthespot
afterdashtohimbythecarandafterrunningoverhimandalsothe
otherlabourswereinjuredinthesameincident. Nonseizureofbed
sheetandpillowwillnotatallhamperthecaseofprosecution.Sothe
argumentsadvancedbyShriShivadethatthedeathofNurullawasnot
because of the dash of the car involved in the accident cannot be
accepted.
H)
383.
Accusedwasnotpossessingdrivinglicence:
Thereisalsoachargeagainsttheaccusedthataccusedwas
drivingthevehiclewithoutdrivinglicenceatthetimeoftheaccident.
TheInvestigatingOfficerPW27Shengalinhisevidencedeposedthat
hedemandedlicencefromtheaccused,buttheaccuseddidnotproduce
thelicence.Theprosecutioninordertoprovethecharge,hasexamined
PW23RaghuvirSinghBilawar. AspertheversionofPW23Bilawar,
heisworkinginRTODepartmentandwasqualifiedforthesaidpost
throughMaharashtraPublicServiceCommissionExamination.Hehas
narratedinhisevidencethatRTOofficeusedtoissuelearninglicence,
permanentlicence,issuanceoffitnesscertificate,permittothetransport
vehicles, etc. PW23 also deposed that the learning licence is to be
issuedforaperiodof6monthsthereafterpermanentlicencerequiredto
...201/
..201..
Judgment
beobtainedfromR.T.O. 20yearsperiodisthevalidityofthelicence
forthelightvehicleorageupto50yearsoftheperson.Afterattending
theageof50years,thelicenceholderalsogetfurther5yearsvalidityof
licencebyrenewingthesame.FurtherPW23alsodeposedthatatthe
time of taking permanent licence, the person has to submit learning
licenceandisalsorequiredtofillapplicationinForm4.Addressand
ageproofisrequiredtobesubmitted. Thepersonwhowantstoget
permanentlicencehastosubmittestfee. AccordingtoPW23,then
RTOInspectortakesdrivingtestofthepersonapplyingforpermanent
licence. PW23furtherdeposedthat,ifapersonishavingpermanent
licence,thenhecannotapplyfornewlicenceforthesamecategoryof
vehicle.Thepersonhastodeclaretheinformationwhilesubmittingthe
application for learning licence that he is not holding the licence of
particularcategoryofvehicleforwhichheapplies.
384.
TheevidenceofPW23BilawarfurtherrevealsthatAndheri
RTO received a letter from Bandra Police Station for inquiry of the
licenceofSalmanKhan.PW23hasexaminedtherecordinRTOoffice
pertaining to the driving licence of accused. He also checked the
registersmaintainedinRTOoffice,Andheri. AccordingtoPW23,as
per the record maintained in RTO office, on 17.08.2004 permanent
licencewasissuedtotheaccused.ThenumberofthelicenceisMH02
2004/B/786. As per the record, the validity of the licence is till
26.12.2015. The address is 111/A, Galaxy Apartment, Band Stand,
Bandra. PW23alsobroughtregisterpertainingtotherecordofthe
licence of the accused. Certified copy of the extract of the driving
licenceisalsoproducedonrecordwhichisatExh.121.
...202/
385.
..202..
Judgment
PW23 Bilawar further stated in his evidence that new
licenceisgiventotheaccusedbearingNo.MH022004/B/786.Priorto
issuance of the said licence, no licence was issued to the accused.
Furtheraccordingtohim,thevalidityoftheapplicationFormNo.4is
fortheperiodof5yearsandthereaftertheapplicationFormNo.4is
liabletobedestroyed.Exh.120istheletterissuedbyTransferOfficer
PrabhakarBhaleraoauthorizingPW23Bilawartogivetheevidence.
386.
PW23 Bilawar is also crossexamined at length by ld.
Advocate Mr. Shivade. He admitted that some of the pages were

missingfromtheregister.Duringthecourseofcrossexamination,the
entryinthenameofaccusedwasshowntothewitness.Theportionon
whichphotoisaffixedistorn.PW23alsoadmittedthattheportionon
thepageishavingsignatureofSalmanisalsofoundtorn.Heisunable
totellinwhosehandwritingtheentriesare. PW23deniedthatthe
entry in the name of accused in the register is fabricated and false
recordiscreated.ThequestioniswhyRTOofficewillcreatefalserecord
inthenameofaccused?
387.
IfthecrossexaminationofPW23Bilawarislookedinto,
nothingisbroughtonrecordbythedefencetodiscardtheevidenceof
PW23.Itispertinenttonotethatthereisachargeagainsttheaccused
thatatthetimeofincident,theaccusedwasnotholdingthelicence.
TheprosecutionalsoexaminedPW23Bilawar. Accordingtohim,as
perrecord,licencewasissuedtotheaccusedon17.08.2004andthe
validitytill26.12.2015. Priorto17.08.2004nolicencewasissuedto
...203/
..203..
Judgment
SalmanKhan. Theallegedincidentoccurredintheinterveningnight
between27.09.2002to28.09.2002.Theburdenshiftsontheaccused
todemonstratethathewashavinglicenceonthedayoftheincident.
However, nothing is produced by the accused to show that he was
possessingthelicence.Iftheaccusedwashavingthelicenceontheday
of theincident,thenhe couldhave producedit. Non productionof
licence itself demonstrates that the accused was not possessing the
licence.Inmyopinion,theprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonable
doubtthatonthedayofincident,theaccusedwasnothavingvalid
drivinglicence.Ld.AdvocateMr.ShivadecontendedthatasAshokwas
drivingthevehicle,questionofproducingdrivinglicencewasnotarise.
I am afraid to accept such argument. I am of the opinion that the
prosecutionhasprovedthechargeagainsttheaccusedthathewasnot
possessingthedrivinglicenceatthetimeofdrivingthevehicleatthe
timeofincident.
388.
TheInvestigatingOfficerPW27Shengalalsoproducedon
record reply written by RTO, Andheri, dated 03.10.2002 and RTO,

Wadala,dated14.10.2002(Exh.161colly.).RespectiveRTOinformed
Bandra Police Station that no driving licence was issued to Salman
Khan.Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadeobjectedtogiveexhibittothesaid
reply. ItispertinenttonotethatPW27on03.10.2002sentletterto
RTOandcalledinformationregardingthelicence.Soinpursuanceof
the letter, replies were given. Though the prosecution has not
examinedtheRTO,Andheri,andRTO,Wadala,whowrotetheletters,
however,theprosecutionhasexaminedPW23Bilawartoshowthatthe
licence was not issued to the accused prior to 2004. As discussed
above,theaccusedalsonotproducedthelicenceonrecord.
...204/
I)
389.
..204..
Judgment
Conductoftheaccused
Theconductoftheaccusedaftertheincidentbynottaking
reasonablestepstoprovidemedicalaidtothevictimsandalsofailedto
giveinformationaboutaccidenttothepoliceisthecircumstanceagainst
him.Thereisalsoachargeagainsttheaccusedthatafterthemishap,
theaccuseddidnotrendermedicalhelptothevictims,norreporttothe
police about the incident. The ld. SPP Mr. Gharat vehemently
submittedthattheaccusedfledawayfromthespotaftertheincident,
neglectingtheinjuredfromprovidinganymedicalhelpandalsofailed
toreportthepolice.Accordingtotheld.SPPMr.Gharat,theaccusedis
arenownedactorandfamousinthesociety. Hadhebeennotguilty,
whatpreventedhimfromstayingbacktocalmdownthepeopleandtell
them that the action would being taken against the driver, if really
Ashokwasdriving. Furtheraccordingtotheld.SPP, whenaccused
wasnotdrivingthevehicle,accordingtohimthenwhyhelefttheplace.
Ld.AdvocateMr.Shivadevehementlycontendedthataftertheaccident,
thepeoplegatheredonthespot.Peoplebecamefuriousasthebakery
men became injured and were beneath the car. According to Mr.
Shivade,thereiseveryapprehensionthatiftheaccusedremainedon
thespot,thepossibilityofoccurringuntowardincidentwithhimcannot
be ruled out. Ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade drawn my attention to the
crossexaminationofPW7Francis.Asperhisversion,theaccusedwas
surrounded by mob. One bhaiya was possessing rod. Salman
recognized PW7 and told him, Commander save me. Thereafter
SalmanandPW7walkedtowardsthe houseandwifeofPW7then
succeededinstoppingthetaxibywhichSalmanwentaway.According
...205/
..205..
Judgment
totheld.SPP,whenitisthecaseoftheaccusedthathewasnotdriving
the vehicle and Ashok was driving the vehicle, then he could have
persuadedthepeoplegatheredonthespot.PW8Pandeyalsonowhere
statedthattherewasapprehensionfromthepeopletoSalman.
390.
PW4Mohd.Kalimalsostatedthattheaccusedgotdown
fromthecarandranawayfromthespotafterseeingthecrowd. He
alsostatedincrossexaminationthatSalmanKhanremainedonthespot
forabout5to10minutes.ManypeoplegatherednearSalman.PW8
also statedin crossexamination that aspeople were in angrymood,
Salmanwassentbyanothercarsothatpeoplewouldnotcausehurtto
him.
391.
Itispertinenttonotethattheaccusedalsosubmittedhis
further written statement u/s.313 of the Cr. P.C. (Exh.171A). The

accusedmentionedinthestatementthatlargecrowdwasgatheredwho
werehostileasstartedattackingandthrowingstones.Francisandhis
wifeaskedSalmantoleavetheplaceascrowdbecameviolentandthey
beatenRavindraandAshok.However,itispertinenttonotethatPW7
Francisnowherestatedinhisevidenceaboutthesaidfact. Henever
statedthatthedriverAshokandPatilwerebeatenbythecrowd. As
argued by ld. SPP, the accused is well known actor and everybody
knowshim. Ifaccordingtotheaccusedhedidnotcommitaccident,
thenhecouldhaveconvincedpeoplethatactionwillbetakenagainst
thedriver.Theaccuseddidnotwaitforpoliceonthespot,butleftthe
spot. Insteadofvisitingpolicestation,theaccusedwenttohishouse
and till 10.30 a.m. he hided himself. This shows one of the
...206/
..206..
Judgment
circumstancesagainsttheaccusedabouthisinvolvementintheoffence.
Ifreallytheaccuseddidnotcommitanywrong,hecouldhavevisited
thepolicestation immediatelyandlodgedthe informationaboutthe
incident. It is pertinent to note that the accused did not take any
positivestepsbyvisitinghospitaltoseetheinjuredandprovidemedical
aidtothemandtocomeonthespotagainwithpolice.
392.
The accused is a renowned Film Actor and he could do
anything to provide help to the injured. If a ghastly accident takes

place,whereinonepersonwascrushedandfourwereinjuredandin
spite of that, the person whose vehicle was involved in the accident
hided himself till he is arrested, this itself shows the conduct of the
accused.
393.
In State (through PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi) v/s
SanjeevNanda,[(2012)3SupremeCourtCases(Cri)899,(2012)8
SupremeCourtCases450,relianceisplacebyHon'bleApexCourton
thejudgmentinacaseParmanandKataraV.UnionofIndia[(1989)
4SCC286].
95.ThisCourtinParmanandKataraV.UnionofIndia
pointedoutthatitisthedutyofeverycitizentohelpa
motoraccidentvictim,moresowhenoneisthecauseof
theaccident,orisinvolvedinthatparticularaccident.
Situationsmaybethere,inahighlychargedatmosphereor
duetomobfury,thedrivermayfleefromtheplace,ifthere
isrealdangertohislife,buthecannotshirkhis
responsibilityofinformingthepoliceorotherauthorised
...207/
..207..
Judgment
personsorgoodSamaritansforthwith,sothathumanlives
couldbesaved.Failuretodosomayleadtoserious
consequences,asweseeintheinstancecase.Passengers
whoareinthevehiclewhichmetwithanaccident,have
equalresponsibilitytoinformthepoliceaboutthefactum
oftheaccident,incaseoffailuretodoso,theyareaiding
thecrimeandscreeningtheoffenderfromlegal
punishment.
394.
This is another circumstance against the accused in our
case bynotinformingpolice andalso not providinganyhelp tothe

injured persons. Even he did not visit the hospital to see what
happenedtotheinjured.
J)
Section 304(II), its essential ingredients and effect,
knowledgeetc.:
395.
TheLd.Adv.ShriShivadereliedonmanycaselawswhich
are as follows. The ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade relied on the case of
Basappa V/s. StateofKarnataka [(2014) 5SupremeCourt Cases
154].Inthiscase,theHon'bleApexCourtheldthatHighCourtitself
hasacquittedappellantu/s.187oftheM.V.Actonthegroundofno
evidence, held conviction u/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC cannot be
sustained.
396.
Ld.AdvocateMr.ShivadereliedonthecaseofRaviKapur
v.StateofRajasthan(2012)9SupremeCourtCases284.Inthesaid
case,itisheldthatrashandnegligentdrivinghastobeestablishedin
...208/
..208..
Judgment
thelightoffactsandcircumstancesofagivencase.Speedofvehicleis
notalwaysdeterminative.Recklessandnegligentdrivingatslowspeed
isalsopossible.
397.
Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadereliedonthecaseof Guru
Basavraj v/s. State of Karnataka [(2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases

734.Inthesaidcase,itisheldthattheaccidentoccurredduetothat
detachment of the tailor from tractor and distance to which tractor
moved after detachment vividly reveals that vehicle in question was
drivenrecklesslyandhighspeed.
398.
KuldeepSinghV/s.StateofHimachalPradesh[(2008)14Supreme
CourtCases795).Inthesaidcase,itisheldthattheappellantdriver
drovethevehiclecarryingmorethan50personsathighspeedonthe
publicroadasaresulthelostthecontrolandvehiclewentofftheroad
androlleddownthefieldleavingfourpersonsdeadandseveralother
injured. TheHon'bleApexCourtheldthattheappellantwasrightly
convictedu/s.304A,279,337ofIPCand185ofM.V.Act.Noleniency
andinterferenceinthesentencecalledfor.
399.
Theld.AdvocateMr.ShivadereliedonthecaseofNaresh
GiriV/s.StateofM.P.[(2008)1SupremeCourtCases791.Inthis
case,thebusdrivenbytheappellantwashitbyatrainasaresult,two
personsdiedandseveralpassengersgotinjured.Chargeswereframed
u/s.302andalternatively,u/s.304,325and323oftheIPC.Itisheld
that302primafaciehasnoapplication.CriminalRevisionfiledbythe
...209/
..209..
Judgment
appellant.ChargesstandalteredtoSec.304AalongwithSection279
oftheIPC.
400.
PrabhakaranV/s.StateofKerala[(2007)14SupremeCourtCases
269.Inthiscase,appellantwasthedriverrunningoveraboyaged10
yearscrossingtheroadalongwithotherschoolchildrenin aqueue.
Appellantignoringpassengersandpedestrianscriescautioninghimto
stop,butappellantdrovethebusatspeedandcausedthedeathofthe
boy. TrialCourtandHighCourtconvictedtheappellantu/s.304IIof
theIPConthebasisthattheaccusedactedwiththeknowledgethatit
waslikelytocausedeath.Hence,itisheldthatSection304Aspeaksof
causingdeathbynegligence. Itappliestorashandnegligentactand
doesnotapplytothecaseswheredeathhasbeenvoluntarilycaused.It
only applies to the case in which without any such intention or
knowledge the death is caused by what is described in rash and
negligentact.Henceappropriateactionwouldbeu/s.304AoftheIPC.
401.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade relied on the case of Benny
Francisandothersv/s.StateofKerala(CriminalAppealNo.79of
1990decidedon07.02.1991bytheHon'bleHighCourtofKerala).
Itisheldthatconvictionu/s.304AoftheIPCwithoutchargewasnot
possible.Section304AoftheIPCwasnotminoroffenceconstituting
onlysomeoftheseveralparticularsofmajoroffencepunishableunder
SecondPartofSection304oftheIPC.
...210/
402.
..210..
Judgment
Ld. Advocate Mr.Shivade relied on the case of State of
Gujaratv/s.HaidaraliKalubhai[1976SupremeCourtCases(Cri)
211]. In this case, deceased along with Head Constable and two
constables were resting on the cot in the hotel by the side of the
highway.Theappellantcametothespotonhistruck.Theappellant
allegedtohavedriventhetruckinafullspeedagainstthedeceasedcot
overthrowinghimandcausedhisdeath. SessionsCourtconvictedthe
appellantu/s.304IIwhichwasalteredtoSec.304AbytheHighCourt.
TheappealwaspreparedtotheHon'bleApexCourt.Itisheldthatthe
factsdisclosedintheprosecutionevidencedonotmakeoutthecaseof
anywillfulordeliberateactonthepartoftheaccusedandSec.304Aby
itsowndefinitiontotallyexcludestheingredientsSection299or300of
IPC.ItisheldbytheHon'bleApexCourtthatnoerrorwascommitted
bytheHighCourtinholdingthatthecasefallsunderSection304Aof
theIPCandnotunderSection304IIoftheIPC.Ihavegonethrough
thecitedcaselawsandIamoftheopinionthatthecaselawsarenot
applicabletoourcaseathand.
403.
There are two landmark judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court on the aspect of rash and negligent driving, driving under

consumptionofthealcohol,abouttheknowledgeoftheact,failingto
giveinformationtopoliceafteraccidentandalsoneglectedtheinjured
anddidnotprovideanymedicalhelp. Thelandmarkjudgmentsare
(1) The State of Maharashtra V/s. Alister Anthony Pareira in
Criminal Appeal No. 430/07 with The State of Maharashtra V/s
Alister Anthony Pareira in criminal appeal no. 566/07 with
CriminalAppealNo.475/2007decidedon6.9.2007and(2)State
...211/
..211..
Judgment
throughPSLodhiColony,NewDelhiV/s.SanjeevNanda[(2012)3
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 899, (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases
450)]inCriminalAppealNo.1168of2012. Thejudgmentofthe
Hon'bleBombayHighCourtincaseofAlisterPareiraisalsoconfirmed
byHon'bleApexCourtin CriminalAppealNos.13181320of2007,
decidedon12.1.2012.
404.
Inboththesecasestheaccuseddrovethevehicleinrash
andnegligentmannerunderinfluenceoftheliquorandcauseddeathof
thepersons.InthecaseofAlisterAnthonyPareira,theAlisterPareira
drovethevehicleinrashandnegligentmannerandcauseddeathof6
persons and injured others. These persons were sleeping on the
footpath. TheaccusedAlisterPareirawashavingknowledgethatthe
peopleinMumbaiusedtosleeponthefootpath.Theratiolaiddownin
thecaseofAlisterPareiraisalsoapplicabletoourcase. InSanjeev
Nanda'scasealsoitisheldthattheaccuseddrovethevehicleinthe
rashandnegligentmannerunderintoxicationandcauseddeathof7
persons. The accused was also having knowledge about the
consequenceofhisact.Hefledfromthespotanddidnotrenderany
helptotheinjured. Inboththecasestheaccusedwasconvictedu/s
304 (II) of the IPC. In Alister Pareira case the accused was also
convictedu/s337,338oftheIPC.
405.
Inourcasealsothechargesagainsttheaccusedisthatthe
accuseddrovetheLandCruiservehicleinrashandnegligentmannerin
speed,underintoxication,atabout2.45a.m.whiletakingrightturnon
theHillRoadfromSt.AndrewsRoad,hecouldnotcontrolthevehicle
...212/
..212..
Judgment
and went straight and ran over the poor bakery persons sleeping in
frontoftheAmericanExpressLaundry.Thecarranoverthemandalso
climbedthethreestairsoftheAmericanExpressLaundry.Nurullawas
crushedanddiedonthespotandtwobakerypersonssustainedsimple
injuriesandtwobakerypersonssustainedgrievousinjuries. Accused
wasnotholdinglicense.Healsolefttheplacewithin5to10minutes
anddidnotvisitpolicestation forinformingthe incidentnortothe
hospitaltoseetheinjured.Evenhedidnotprovideanymedicalfacility
tothepoorinjuredpersons.AccusedisawellknownCinemaactorof
Bollywood.
406.
Inourcasealsotheaccusedischargedu/s304(II),337,
338ofIPCand181,185&187ofMotorVehicleAct.
407.
In the Landmark judgment of Alister Pareira, Their
LordshipsoftheHon'bleHighCourtdiscussedtheprovisionsofSection
304(II)ofIPC,abouttheknowledgewhichistheimportantconstituent
ofSection304(II)IPC.Astheprinciplelaiddowninthejudgmentof
AlisterPareirawhichisalsoapplicabletoourcase,itisnecessaryto
reproducedsomeoftheparasofthesaidjudgment.
31. Under Section 304(II), whoever commits
culpablehomicidenotamountingtomurdercanbe
punishedwithimprisonmentofeitherdescriptionfor
atermwhichmayextendto10yearsorwithfineor
withboth,iftheactisdonewithknowledgethatitis
likelyto cause death butwithout any intention to
cause death or to cause such bodily injury, as is
...213/
..213..
Judgment
likely to cause death. A bare reading of this

provision shows that there are three essential
ingredientsoftheoffencepunishableundersection
304(II); (a) accused must commit a culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, (b) the act is
donewithknowledgethatitislikelytocausedeath
and(c)butwithoutanyintentiontocausedeath.
32.
Section 299 of IPC defines culpable
homicideaswhoevercausesdeathbydoinganact
with the intention of causing death or with an
intentionofcausingsuchbodilyinjury,asislikelyto
causedeathorwiththeknowledgethatitislikelyby
suchacttocausedeath. Illustration(b)tosection
299indicatesthekindofcases,whichwillfallwithin
the ambit of section 299. A culpable homicide
whichisnotamurderwithinthecontemplationof
theprovisionsofsection300canalonefallwithin
the scope of section 304(II). Knowledge and
intention are the deciphering and distinguishing
factors. If an act is done with knowledge but
withoutintention,thenitwouldfallundersection
304(II), but if there is intention for committing
offence of culpable homicide, it would take it
beyondthepurviewofthisprovision.Theprovision
of section 304 fallsinto two different classes; one
where offence is committed with intention of
...214/
..214..
Judgment
causingdeathorbodilyinjuryasislikelytocause
deathprovidinglifeimprisonmentorimprisonment
foratermwhichmayextendto10yearswithfine.
Theotherpartisrelatabletotheactwhichisdone
withknowledgethatitislikelytocausedeathbut
wheretheelementofintentionisabsent. Thereit
prescribes different punishment of lesser gravity.
Theactdonewithknowledgeoftheendresultbeing
of the kind where the doer had reason to believe
thatthe actusreuswouldresultintoanoffence,
theknowledgewouldbeattributabletotheoffender.
Thecourtmay,inagivensetoffacts,attributeto
the intoxicatedman same knowledge asif he was
quitesober.Thismaynotbequitetruesofarasthe
intentionisconcerned.Knowledgeisanexpression
of wide connotation and is capable of varied
interpretation in the context of the facts and
circumstancesofagivencase. Whiledoinganact,
knowledgeofconsequencewouldbeattributableto
theaccused,ifitfallswithinthenormalbehaviourof
the person ofcommon prudence. Itisdifficult to
state with certainty any essential constituent of
knowledgebutthisaspectcansafelybeexamined
inthelightofvariousjudicialpronouncementsand
settledcanonsofcriminaljurisprudence.
35.
In a given circumstance knowledge
...215/
..215..
Judgment
may be construed quite differently from the

expression knowing. Knowledge is of a lesser
degreewhileknowingisofadefiniteconnotation
anditmustbeestablishedthatthe offenderknew
aboutit.Knowledgehasalsobeenexplainedinthe
JudicialDictionarybyK.J.Aiyarsasunder:
KnowledgeAclearandcertainperception
ofthatwhichexists.
Knowledge includes either personal
knowledge or knowledge derivedfrom documents.
Norestrictioncanbereadinthewordknowledge
thatitoughttobederivedbyocularseeingofthe
event.Magistratecantakecognizanceoftheoffence
of his own knowledge derived from the police
papers,FIR,andthefinalreportundersection169.
36.
One of the meanings given in the
OxfordDictionaryofthewordknowledgeis:
Thefactofknowingathing,state,etcor(in
general sense person, acquaintance, familiarity
gainedbyexperience). Acquaintancewithafact,
perception, or certain information of a fact or
matter, state of being aware or informed,
consciousness(ofanything).Theobjectisusuallya
proposition expressed or implied, e.g., the
knowledgethatapersonispoor,knowledgeofhis
poverty.
...216/
39.
..216..
Judgment
Knowledge is again distinguishable
from reason to believe. The term knowledge

contains higher degree while the term reason to
believeisamatteroflesserdegree.Inthefirst,the
personhasdirectappealtohissense,whileinthe
latter, there is sufficient cause to believe. While
determiningknowledgeinrelationtoanevent,the
conductofthepersonpriortoandatthetimeofthe
eventisofrelevantconsideration.Actusreusrequires
that to constitute a crime there must be a result
broughtaboutbyhumanconduct,tophysicalevent,
whichlawprohibits.Whenanindividualpursuesor
followsalineofconduct,heisexpectedtoproduce
certainresults. Finaleventsorresultsmaybethe
outcomeofdifferenteventsoritmaybetheresultof
asingleact. Iftheendresultisprohibitedinlaw
andifknowledgewouldhavetobeconstruedinthe
events of that case in relation to the evidence on
record,theonusobviouslyisontheprosecutionto
provethechainofactseventoattributeknowledge
totheaccused.Theconceptofknowledgehastobe
understoodandappliedtothefactsofagivencase
in complete contradistinction to the words
informationorreasonstobelieve. Theremaybe
difference of degree but that difference has to be
kept in mind, as that alone is the paramount
...217/
..217..
Judgment
consideration even at the stage of framing charge

whetherunderSections300,302or304andforthat
matter,304(I)or(II)oftheIPC(SeeCommentary
byK.D.Gaur,3rdeditiononIPCandCommentaryon
IPC by Ratanlal Dhirajlal, 31st enlarged edition of
2006).
40.
TheSupremeCourtandvariousHighCourts
have also explained the word knowledge. To

establish knowledge as an ingredient of criminal
offence, there has to be an affirmative or
circumstantial evidence to bring home to the
accusedthathehadknowledgeofhisacts.Whata
personofnormalandordinaryprudenceforeseeby
utilization of his sense directly, would be
knowledge.InthecaseofJairajvs.StateofTamil
Nadu, AIR 1976 SC 1519, the Supreme Court
observed that knowledge of the likelihood of the
deathofthepersoniscontemplatedinlaw. Under
section 304(II), if the result of the criminal act is
death of the victim and if each of the assailants
possesses the knowledge that death is the likely
consequenceofcriminalact,thenthereisnoreason
whysection34shouldnotbereadwithsecondpart
of section 304 to make each of such persons
individuallyliable. [AfrahimSheikhandors.Vs.
StateofWestBengal(1964)6SCR172].
...218/
41.
..218..
Judgment
Itwillbeusefultorefertothefactsofa
case titled State of Gujarat vs. Haidarali Kalubhai,

1976(1) SCC 889, which had not been argued
duringthecourseofthehearingofthiscase.Inthat
casetheaccusedwaschargedforanoffenceunder
section304IIontheallegationthathehadcaused
deathofapoliceofficerlyingonacotfromwhere
hewasthrownout.Accordingtotheaccusedandas
per his statement under section 313 of the Code,
whenhewasreversingthevehicle,othertruckwas
standingandwhilemakinghiswaytothenarrow
passage,theacceleratorgotstuckandthetruckthen
wentinhighspeedresultingintheaccident.When
thedriverheardthenoise,thecleanerofthetruck
toldhimthathehadstuckthetruckagainstacot
andpeoplewereinjured.Thatobviouslywasacase
ofnegligentdrivingsimpliciter,asisclearfromthe
attendantcircumstancesandnoknowledgecouldbe
attributable to the accused in the facts and
circumstances of the case that his reversing the
vehiclecouldcausefatalaccident,unlikethefactsof
the present case where direct evidence as well as
attendant circumstances clearly demonstrate that
safelyaninferenceofknowledgecouldbedrawn.
42.
Anotherimportantaspectwhichhasto
...219/
..219..
Judgment
beexaminedisthatallpersonsaredeemedtobein
the knowledge of law. What is prohibited in law
andwhatisanoffenceinlaw,aremattersofpublic
knowledge.Ignoranceoflawisnotavaliddefence
whenthepersoniscommittinganactoromission,
which would result in an act prohibited in law.
Therefore, the offender cannot take the plea of
ignoranceinthatregard. Itwillbeusefulalsoto
notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
caseofJotiPrasadvs.StateofHaryana(AIR1993
SC1167),wherecounterfeitcourtfeestampswere
recovered from the possession of the accused, a
licencedstampvendor.Theaccusedallegedthathe
hadpurchasedthestampsfromthetreasury,butdid
notproduceregisterofsuchpurchase.Theaccused
alsodidnotmakeanyefforttosummontherecord
of the treasury. The court held that it would be
propertoinferthattheaccusedhasknowledgeor
reasontobelievethatthestampswerecounterfeit.
43.
The concept of rash and negligent driving
simpliciter can be attributable where there are no

other attendant circumstances of culpable factors
indicating additional conduct, act, omission or
commissiononthepartoftheoffender,preandpost
accident.Knowledgeisaconceptwhichwouldget
attracted in the above circumstances as the case
...220/
..220..
Judgment
would fall beyond the known canons of rash and

negligent driving simpliciter. Getting drunk and
under the influence of liquor using a big stick or
other weapon for giving blow on the head of a
personresultingindeath,wouldobviouslybeanact
donewithknowledgethattheactwouldorislikely
tocausedeath. Merelybecauseanautomotivecar
orscooterisinvolvedinthesameprocesswouldnot
byitselftaketheoffenceoutsidethescopeofsection
304(II)ofIPC. Thecourtwouldhavetoexamine
this in the light of the evidence led by the
prosecution, defence,if any, the links provided by
theaccusedhimselfinhisstatementundersection
313andattendantprovencircumstancesofthecase.
408.
Inourcase,theaccusedadmittedtheincidentbutdenied
that he was driving the vehicle. According to him his driver DW1
AshokwasdrivingthevehicleonHillRoad.Accordingtohimitwasa
pure accident as left front tyre of the vehicle was burst thereby the
steeringbecamehardandvehiclewentonthebakerylabourssleeping
infrontoftheAmericanExpressLaundryandvehicleclimbedtwothree
stairs. Thedefenceoftheaccusedisrejectedbymefromtakinginto
consideration. Theprosecutionbeyondreasonabledoubtprovedthat
the accused was driving the vehicle. In the incident Nurulla was
expiredandfourpersonswereinjured. Theaccusedisaresidentof
Banrda.Thespotofincidentisalsolocatedata200metersfromhis
house.PW6BaluMuthe,abodyguardofSohelKhan,thebrotherof
...221/
..221..
Judgment
accusedalsostatedatabout3.00am,onepersoncamerunningnear
GalaxyApartmentandinformedthatSalmanKhan'scarmetwithan
accidentnearthejunctionofSt.AndrewsRoadandHillRoad.Healso
statedinthecrossexaminationthatwithin23minutesonecanreachat
thespotoftheincidentfromtheGalaxyApartment.Thesaidevidence
remainedunchallenged.Sospotofincidentisveryclosenearthehouse
oftheaccused.TheaccusedisbroughtupintheMumbaiandresiding
inBandrasincemanyyears.Heisalsoacquaintedwiththetopography
oftheBandraarea. Asthespotofincidentislocatednearthehouse,
theaccusedwasknowingthatthepoorbakerylaboursusedtosleepin
frontofAmericanExpressLaundry.FurtherPW5MalayBag,waiterin
theRainBarrestaurantalsodeposedthatSalmanKhanistheregular
visitoroftheBarwhichislocatedinJuhu.Onthedayofincidentalso
the accused visited the Rain Bar, thereafter J. W. Mariot and while
returningatabout2.45a.m.theaccidenttookplace. Soaccusedis
knowingverywelltheroutefromhishouseuptotoRainBarandJ.W.
Marriot.ItappearsthatwhentheaccusedisvisitingRainBarandJ.W.
Marriot,asheistheregularvisitoroftheRainBar,itcanbesaidthat
accusedalsousedtotravelinthenight.Insuchsituationandalsothe
spotofincidentisveryneartotheplaceofresidenceofaccused,itcan
be said that the accused is having knowledge that the people are
sleepinginfrontoftheAmericanExpressLaundry.
409.
TheaccusediswellknownCineActorandalsoaccusedwas
havingknowledgethatoneshouldnotdrivethevehiclewithoutlicense.
Theaccusedwasalsohavingknowledgethatoneshouldnotdrivethe
vehicle under consumption of the liquor that too in the late night.
...222/
..222..
Judgment
Thesearethebasicrules.Astheaccusedistheregularcustomerofthe
Rain Bar, accused might have gone number of times from near
AmericanExpressLaundry.EvenPW17MarkMarshalD'souzawhois
working in the American Express Laundry also stated that the said
laundryislocatedonHillRoadandalsoSt.AndrewsRoadisrunning
oppositetotheLaundry.HealsousedtoseeSalmanKhansometimes
fromHillRoad.SalmanKhanusedtopassnearfromhislaundry.The
saidevidencealsoremainedunchallenged. Inshorttheaccusedwas
havingknowledgethatthepoorlaboursweresleepinginfrontofthe
AmericanExpressLaundry. Theaccusedwasalsohavingknowledge
thathewasnotpossessinglicensetodrivethecaratatimeofincident.
Theaccusedwasalsopossessingknowledgethatheshouldnotdrivethe
car under alcohol consumption. There was 0.062 mg. alcohol was
noticedinthebloodoftheaccused. Whenthepersonwasconsumed
alcohol andwasdrivingthecarinlatenight,itwasdifficultforthe
persontoconcentrateinthenightandthathehadaknowledgethat
thereiseverylikelihoodofhismeetingwithanaccidentresultingin
deathorinjuriestoothersparticularlythosesleepingonthefootpath.
Theknowledgeofsuchfactcanneitherbefarawayfromthereality,in
anycase,wouldsquarelyfallwithinthetermofknowledgeappearing
insection304(II)ofIPC.Keepinginmindthefactsandcircumstances
ofthepresentcasethe eventresultingfrom suchacts,omission and
offenceswouldbewithintheknowledgeoftheoffender.Ifindthatour
casesquarelyfall within a termofknowledgeappearingin section
304(II)IPC.
K)
Latches,lapses,errorsintheinvestigation:
...223/
410.
..223..
Judgment
Ld.AdvocateMr.Shivadevehementlysubmittedthatthere
aremanylatches,lapses,errorsintheinvestigation. Accordingtold.
Advocate Mr. Shivade, the parking tag, which is important piece of
evidence,isnotonrecord.Furtherthephotographsofthevehicleand
its position in the incident were also not taken. No photographs of
stairsofAmericanExpressonwhichthevehiclewasrestingweretaken.
The statements of Yogesh Verma, working in J.W. Mariot, Security
GuardofJ.W.Mariotwerenotrecordedwhenthecaroftheaccused
parkedinthepremisesofJ.W.Mariot.Thebedsheets,pillow,clothesof
the deceased were also not seized. Further it is contended by Mr.
ShivadethattheleftfronttyrewasalsonotsenttotheLaboratoryfor
examination. Hence, on all these grounds, it is submitted that the
prosecutionstoryisnotfreefromanydoubt.
411.
Asagainstthis,itiscontendedbytheld.SPPMr.Gharat
thatnonexaminationoftheYogeshKadamisnotfataltothecaseof
prosecution. TheprosecutionhasexaminedPW12Kalpeshwhowas
alsoParkingAssistant.Furtheritissubmittedbytheld.SPPthatnon
examinationofwitnessesfromJ.W.MariotHotelisalsonotfataltothe
caseofprosecution.TheInvestigatingOfficerhasrecordedstatements
of the injured witnesses within 3 to 4 days of the incident. These
witnessesareimpartialwitnessesandalsosuffererintheincidentand
theywereundermentalshockandalsowereinconfusestateofmindin
themannerinwhichtheincidenttakenplace.Eventhoughsomedelay
iscausedtorecordthestatement,thatwouldnotbefataltothecaseof
prosecution. Sofarasparkingtagisconcerned,accordingtold.SPP,
PW12 Kalpesh is examined. There is no dispute that the car was
...224/
..224..
Judgment
parkinginthepremisesofJ.W.Mariot.PW12Kalpeshhadgiventhe
carinpossessionofthe accused. ThereisdirectevidenceofPW12
Kalpeshwhosawaccusedsittingonthedriver'sseatandtheaccused
hadgiventhetipofRs.500/tohim.Accordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,
tipistobegivenwhenoneleavesfromtheplace.Insuchsituation,non
productionoftheparkingtagandnonexaminationofYogeshKadam
willnotfataltothecaseofprosecution. Furtheraccordingtold.SPP
Mr.Gharat,thedefenceputforthbytheaccusedaboutburstingofthe
tyre is also ruled out. The accident was occurred due to rash and
negligentdrivingwhileturningthevehiclewithouttakingpropercare
andattention,havingknowledgethatthepeopleweresleepinginfront
ofAmericanExpresscleaners.Hence,eveniffrontlefttyrenotsentto
the laboratory for examination, it will not fatal to the case of
prosecution.
412.
Theld.AdvocateShriShivadefurthersubmittedthatthe
prosecution has not examined API Yadav, Senior Police Officer, who
recordedFIRalongwithPW26PSIKadam. ShriShivadedrawnmy
attentiontothe crossexamination of complainantPatil wherein Patil
hasstatedthathelodgedthecomplaintwithAPIYadavandPSIKadam.
According to ld. Advocate as the prosecution did not examine API
Yadav, the accused has been deprived of the opportunity of cross
examine API Yadav on the point of FIR. In my opinion, though
prosecutionhasnotexaminedAPIYadav,Ifindthatnoprejudicewould
becausedtotheaccusedasprosecutionhasexaminedPSIKadam.PSI
KadamhasrecordedFIRofcomplainantPatil.FurtherPSIKadamalso
drawn spot panchanama and on that ground also, he was cross
...225/
..225..
Judgment
examined.FurthernonexaminationofthewitnessesfromJ.W.Marriot
willnotinvalidthecaseoftheprosecution.
Relianceisplacedon
thereportedjudgmentin KarnelSinghV/sStateofM.P.[1995(5)
SCC 518], the court, despite the fact that there was improper
investigationheldasunder:
5.
Notwithstanding our unhappiness regarding the
natureofinvestigation,wehavetoconsiderwhetherthe
evidenceonrecord,evenonstrictscrutiny,establishes
theguilt. Incasesofdefectiveinvestigationthecourt
hastobecircumspectinevaluatingtheevidencebutit
would not be right in acquitting an accused person
solely on account of the defect; to do so would
tantamount to playing into the hands of the
investigating office if the investigation is designedly
defective. Anyinvestigatingofficer,in fairnesstothe
prosecutrix as well the accused, would have recorded
the statements of the two witnesses and would have
drawn up proper seizure memo in regard to the
chaddi.Thatisthereasonwhywehavesaidthatthe
investigationwasslipshodanddefective.
6.
We must admit that the defective investigation
gave us some anxious moments and we were at first

blushinclinedtothinkthattheaccusedwasprejudiced.
Butoncloserscrutinywehavereasontothinkthatthe
loopholes in the investigation were left to help the
accusedatthecostofthepoorprosecutrix,alabourer.
...226/
..226..
Judgment
Toacquitsolelyonthegroundwouldbeaddinginsultto
injury.
413.
ItispertinenttonotethatKamalKhanwasalsotravelling
inthecaratthetimeoftheincident. HeisoriginallyBritishCitizen.
HeisaSingerandusedtovisitIndiaforsinging.Heisnotexaminedby
theprosecution. Duringthecourseofarguments,neitherprosecution
nor defenceadvancedargumentregardingtheexamination ofKamal
Khan.
414.
While concluding, I find that it is established beyond
reasonabledoubtbyprosecutionthat,accusedwasdrivingthevehicle
atthetimeoftheaccident.ThedefenceoftheaccusedthatDW1was
drivingisdiscardedfromconsideration.DW1AshokSinghisagotup
witnesswhohascometohelptheaccusedontheinstructionofSalim
Khan,thefatheroftheaccused.After13yearsforthefirsttimeu/s313
ofCr.PCaccusedhasstatedthatinitiallyAltafandthereafterAshok
Singhwasdrivingthevehicle.Theaccusedneversuggestedhiscasein
crossexaminationtocomplainantPatil. Nearabout27witnessesare
examined before me. Accused never suggested to any of these
witnessesduringcrossexaminationthatinitiallyAltafwasdrivingthe
vehiclefrom hishouse in the nightof 27.9.2002upto Rain Bar and
thereaftertoJ.W.Mariot. Itwasalsoneversuggestedtoanyofthe
witnessesthatatJ.W.Mariot,Altafwashavinggiddinesstherefore,he
contactedAshokSinghtocometoJ.W.Mariottoreachaccusedathis
house.ItwasalsoneversuggestedtoanyofthewitnessesthatAshok
Singhwasdrivingthevehicleandthetyrewasburstresultinginthe
...227/
..227..
Judgment
incident. The accused never suggested to the PW26 Kadam who

recordedFIRofthecomplainantaswellasPW27InvestigatingOfficer
Shengal that tyre was burst and at that time Ashok was driving the
vehicle.Evendefenceneversuggestedtoanyofthewitnessexamined
before me that accused was not driving the vehicle at the time of
incidentandhewasnotundertheintoxication.Onlyitwassuggested
tocomplainantPatilwhoseevidencewasrecordedbeforeMetropolitan
Magistrate,Bandra.Thesaidevidenceisrelevantandadmittedu/s33
oftheEvidenceAct.Sodefencefailstoputhiscasetotheprosecution
witnesses. ThesaidaspectisalsodealtintheLandmarkcaseofthe
AlisterPereiraV/sStateofMaharashtra.
415.
Theaccusedwasalsohavingknowledgebeingtheresident
ofsamelocalitythatpoorlabourersusedtosleepinfrontofAmerican
ExpressCleaners. Itisalsobroughtonrecordthataccusedisregular
visitortotheRainBar. Theaccusedwasalsohavingknowledgethat
one should not drive the vehicle after consuming the alcohol. The
accused was also having knowledge that one should not drive the
vehiclewithoutlicense.Theaccusedaftertheaccidentdidnotwaiton
thespotandinsteadofgoingtopolicestationforlodginginformation,
wenttohishouse. Till10.30amtheaccuseddidnotmakehimself
availableinpolicestationorwenttoseetheinjuredinthehospital.
Theaccusedisawellknownartist,itwaspossibleforhimtoprovide
medical help tothe poor people,buthe didn't. Fornotvisitingthe
policestationisthataccusedwasundertheconsumptionofthealcohol.
416.
TheLd.AdvocateShriShivadesubmittedthatevidenceof
...228/
..228..
Judgment
Patilisrecordedintheabsenceofaccused.ItappearsthatHonbleHigh
CourtexemptedaccusedaspertheroznamarecordedintheCourtof
Metropolitan Magistrate. Accused was exempted so accused cannot
raisethegroundthatinhisabsenceevidencewasrecorded.Furtherhis
advocate was present at the time of recording the evidence of Patil.
MucharguedbyLd.AdvShriShivadethatforadistanceof78Km.ata
speedof90100verylittletimewouldberequired,butaccordingtohim
30minutestimewasrequiredtoreachthespotofthe incident. So
accordingtohimthevehiclewasnotinspeed.Ifreallythevehiclewas
notinspeedtheburstingofthetyrewouldnotariseandvehiclecould
havebeenstoppedonthespotbyapplyingthebrakesasthecarwas
havingABSsystem.Itmeansthatthevehiclewasinspeedandwhile
takingrightturnontheHillRoadfromSt.AndrewsRoad,theaccused
losthiscontrolandwentstraightonthepeoplesleepinginfrontofthe
American Express Laundry, amount to rash and negligent driving .
Eventheaccusedwasnotinthepositiontothinkinordertoapplythe
brakesandthevehicleclimbedthestairsaftercrushingoneNurullaand
injuringfourpersons.Soitgoestoestablishthattheaccusedmusthave
beenalittletipsybecauseofthedrinkshehadconsumedsometime
back.Itis,indeed,extremelydifficulttoassessorjudgewhenliquor
wouldshowitseffectorwouldbeatitspeak.Itvariesfrompersonto
person.
417.
So considering all angles of the case, going through the
ocular,documentary and expert evidence minutely andafter hearing

theargumentsofLd.SPPandLd.defencecouncilsatlength,Iconclude
thattheoffenceu/s304(II)ofIPCismadeoutagainsttheaccusedas
...229/
..229..
Judgment
Nurullawasdiedbecauseofthedashofthevehicle.Accuseddrovethe
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and under influence of the
liquor,causeddeathofNurullaandalsocausedgrievoushurttoMohd.
Abdulla Shaikh and Muslim Shaikh and caused simple injuries to
MannuKhanandMohd.KalimPathan. Accusedbeingresidentofthe
sameareawashavingtheknowledgethatinjuredusedtosleepinfront
of American Express Laundry. Hence in view of the documentary,
ocularandexpertevidenceasreferredabove,clearlyshowthataccused
committedoffenceofculpablehomicidenotamountingtomurderwith
theknowledgethattheacts/injuriescausedbyhim,seeninthelightof
mannerinwhichhedrovethecarinrashandnegligentmanner,while
takingrightturnontheHillRoadfromSt.AndrewsRoadunderthe
influenceoftheliquorwouldcausedeathorlikelytocausedeath. In
fact accused caused the death of Nurulla and also caused grievous
injuries and simple injuries to the other labours. Hence I hold him
guilty punishable under Section 304 (II), 338 and 337 of the IPC.
Accused was not holding the valid license and therefore he also
committed an offence punishable under Section 181 of the Motor
VehiclesAct,1988.Accusedalsofailedtoprovidemedicalhelptothe
injuredandalsofailedtogiveinformationorreporttothepoliceabout
theincidenttherebyaccusedcommittedanoffencepunishableu/s187
ofMotorVehiclesAct,1988.Therewasalcoholnoticedtotheextentof
0.062 % m.g., which is exceeding 30 m.g. per 100 m.l., therefore,
accused also committed an offence punishable under Section 185 of
MotorVehicles,Act,1988.
...230/
418.
Judgment
Itakepausetoheartheaccusedonthepointofsentence.
Date:06.05.2015
419.
..230..
(D.W.Deshpande)
AdditionalSessionsJudge
Gr.Bombay
HeardtheaccusedSalmanKhanonthepointofsentence.
HeleftdiscretionontheCourttopassorderofsentence.
420.
IhavealsoheardMr.Shivade,ld.Advocatefortheaccused,
at length. Ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade relied on the case of State

ThroughPSLodhiColonyVersusSanjeevNanda[(2012)8Supreme
CourtCases450]andalsoonthecaseofAlisterAnthonyPareiraV/s.
StateofMaharashtra(2012)2SCC648.Relyingontheseauthorities,
itissubmittedthatinAlisterPareiracase,AlisterPareirawasconvicted
fortheoffencepunishableu/s.304IIoftheIPCandsentencedtosuffer
R.I.forthreeyears. Soalsointhecaseof SanjeevNanda,theTrial
Courtawardedthesentenceoftwoyears.Thematterreacheduptothe
Honble Supreme Court. The Honble Apex Court did not incline to
enhance the sentence of two years already served, but respondent
(Sanjeev Nanda) was directed to deposit Rs.50 Lacs with Central
Government for providing compensation to the victims in motor
accidentcaseswheredrivers/ownersofthevehiclesarenottraceable.
(Deposit of this amount was in addition to civil settlement already
arrivedatbyrespondentwithvictims),(ii)torendercommunityservice
...231/
..231..
Judgment
oftwoyearstobearrangedbyMinisterofSocialJustice.
The Supreme Court while ordering respondent driver to do
community service and to contribute to welfare fund for hitandrun
cases,hasnotreferredtoanyparticularprovisionoflawunderwhich
suchcourseofactionhasbeenadopted.Thishasperhapsbeendoneby
exercisingtheSupremeCourtsomnibuspowerunderArticle142ofthe
Constitution to do complete justice in a case before it. It therefore
remains to be seen whether lower courts, particularly, trial courts
exercisingoriginaljurisdictionincriminalmatters,canpasssuchkindof
orders.Thepositionmaybeclarifiedinsomefuturecase.
421.
Further it is contended by the ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade
thatinthecaseofAlisterPareira,7personswerediedintheaccident
and8personswereinjured.Mr.Shivadealsosubmittedthatinthecase
of Sanjeev Nanda, 6 persons lost their lives in the accident. The
punishment imposed in Alister Pareira is of 3 years and Rs.8.5 lacs
compensationwasawarded.ThepunishmentawardedagainstSanjeev
Nandaisalreadystatedbyme.Accordingtold.AdvocateMr.Shivade,
inourcase,onlyonepersonisdiedandtwopersonssustainedgrievous
injuriesandtwopersonssustainedsimpleinjuries. AccordingtoMr.
Shivade,ifthetrendofcasesislookedinto,thedriver/accusedwasnot
convictedmorethan3yearsperiod. Mr.Shivadefurthervehemently
submitted that the accused also deposited Rs.19 lacs amount in the
HonbleHighCourtinonepublicservicelitigationintheyear2002.
Mr.Shivadefurthersubmittedthattheaccuseddidnotchallengethe
orderofdepositingtheamountintheHonbleSupremeCourt. Itis
contended by ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade that the accused is ready to
...232/
..232..
Judgment
depositthe compensation,if awardedbythisCourt,butthe accused

shouldnotbepunishedformorethan3years.Thereasongivenbyld.
AdvocateMr.Shivadeisthattheaccusedformedafoundationtermed
as Being Human, a Charitable Trust. The object of the said
foundationisreligious,educational,medical,reliefandotherobjects.
Manyneededpeoplereceivethemoneyforrecoveryoftheirailments,
surgery,etc.Accordingtold.AdvocateMr.Shivade,ifaccusedissent
in jail for more than 3 years, then the work of Human Being
foundationwouldbeaffectedatagreatlength.
422.
Furtheraccordingtold.AdvocateMr.Shivade,theaccused
isalsoattendingtheCourtsincetheyear2003andnodelayiscaused
byhimtoprolongthetrial.Furthertheaccusedmadehimselfavailable
during the trial and the accused never remained absent without
permissionoftheCourt.
423.
Ld.AdvocateMr.Shivadealsocitedthejudgmentofthe
StateofPunjabV/s.BalwinderSinghandothers[(2012)2Supreme
CourtCases182] wherein5personstravellinginthebusdiedinthe
accident. In this case, the Trial Court convicted the accused and
sentenced them for two years each. The sentence upheld by the
SessionsJudge. TheHonbleHighCourtconsideringthattheaccused
hadsufferedaprotractedtrialforabout17yearsandhadundergone
custodyfor15days,reducedquantumofsentence toperiodalready
undergone, but enhancing fine amount to Rs.25,000/ each. The
Honble Apex Court observed that sentencing must have correctional
policyandhaselementofdeterrence.TheHonbleApexCourtimposed
...233/
..233..
Judgment
6monthsR.I.andfineofRs.5,000/.
424.
The ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade also relied on the case of
StateofKarnatakav/s.Sharanappa[(2002)3SupremeCourtCases
738].Inthiscasealso,therewasdeathof4occupantsofthecar.The
HonbleHighCourtinrevisionawardedalessersentence.TheHonble
SupremeCourtobservedthathavingregardtotheseriousnatureofthe
accident, High Courts interference with the sentence was not
warranted. It is held by the Honble Apex Court that the sentence
shouldbeproportionatetothegravityoftheoffenceandshouldhave
deterrenteffect. TheCourtshouldexerciseitsdiscretioninawarding
sentenceinthelargerinterestofthesociety.
425.
Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadealsogavealistofthecases
u/s.304II of the IPC in which the punishment upto 3 months, 6

months, etc. In short, according to Mr. Shivade, the punishment
imposed in the cases is not more than 2 years. According to Mr.
Shivade,inAlisterPareiracasealso,therewasdeathof7personsand8
persons were injured. The sentence imposed on the accused Alister
Pareiraisof3years.ItispertinenttonotethatinAlisterPareiracase,
Trial Court convicted the accused and awarded the punishment
u/s.304IIoftheIPCforatermof6months.TheTrialCourtheldthat
theoffenceu/s.304IIoftheIPCisnotmadeout.TheDivisionBenchof
theHonbleHighCourtafterreappreciatingtheevidence,concluded
thattheoffenceu/s.304IIoftheIPCismadeoutandsentenceof3
years imprisonment was awarded. The Honble Apex Court also
confirmed the judgment of the Division Bench of the Honble High
...234/
..234..
Judgment
Court,Bombay.However,itisobservedbytheHonbleSupremeCourt
thatnoappealhasbeenpreferredbytheStateforenhancementofthe
sentence.OneletterisalsoproducedonrecordwrittentoDr.Reshma
Shetty,M.D.,DouglasKondziolka,inrespectofSalmanKhan. Inthe
saidletter,itismentionedthathe(SalmanKhan)hasananeurysmoff
thebasilarartery,andwewouldrecommendconsiderationoftreatment
forthis.
426.
Mr.Shivade,ld.Advocatefortheaccused,alsoreliedon
thecaseofDalbirSinghVersusStateofHaryana[(2000)5Supreme
CourtCases82].ItisheldthatSection4oftheProbationofOffenders
Actcannotbetreatedasapplicabletotheoffenceu/s.304IIoftheIPC.
ItisobservedbytheHonbleApexCourtwhileconsideringthequantum
ofsentenceasunder:
13. Bearinginmindthegallopingtrendinroadaccidents
inIndiaandthedevastatingconsequencesvisitingthe
victimsandtheirfamilies,criminalcourtscannottreatthe
natureoftheoffenceunderSection304AIPCasattracting
thebenevolentprovisionsofSection4ofthePOAct.While
consideringthequantumofsentencetobeimposedforthe
offenceofcausingdeathbyrashornegligentdrivingof
automobiles,oneoftheprimeconsiderationsshouldbe
deterrence.Aprofessionaldriverpedalstheacceleratorof
theautomobilealmostthroughouthisworkinghours.He
mustconstantlyinformhimselfthathecannotaffordto
haveasinglemomentoflaxityorinattentivenesswhenhis
legisonthepedalofavehicleinlocomotion.Hecannot
...235/
..235..
Judgment
andshouldnottakeachancethinkingthatarashdriving
neednotnecessarilycauseanyaccident;orevenifany
accidentoccursitneednotnecessarilyresultinthedeathof
anyhumanbeing;orevenifsuchdeathensueshemight
notbeconvictedoftheoffence;andlastly,thatevenifheis
convictedhewouldbedealtwithlenientlybythecourt.He
mustalwayskeepinhismindthefearpsychethatifheis
convictedoftheoffenceforcausingdeathofahuman
beingduetohiscallousdrivingofthevehiclehecannot
escapefromajailsentence.Thisistherolewhichthe
courtscanplay,particularlyattheleveloftrialcourts,for
lesseningthehighrateofmotoraccidentsduetocallous
drivingofautomobiles.
427.
In short, it is prayed that the accused is ready to pay
compensation, if directed by this Court, but looking to the sentence

awarded in other cases, the accused should not be awarded harsh
sentenceofimprisonment.
428.
Asagainstthis,itisvehementlysubmittedbytheld.SPP
thatinthepresentcase,onepersonlostthelifeandfourotherpersons
areinjured.Itisfurthercontendedthatfortunatelyotherfourpersons
also escaped from the death. According to ld. SPP, now a days,
automobilesarethedeathtraps. Innocentpersonswithoutanyfault
sustainedinjuriesandsuccumbedandlostthelife. Accordingtold.
SPP, looking to the manner in which the incident taken place, no
leniencybeshowntotheaccused.Theld.SPPMr.Gharatalsorelied
...236/
..236..
Judgment
onthereportedjudgmentoftheHonbleApexCourtincaseofStateof
Punjab v/s. Saurabh Bakshi dated 30.03.2015 in Criminal Appeal
No.520/15(arisingoutofSLPCriminalNo.5825/2014)whereinitis
heldasunder:
18.
Beforepartingwiththecasewearecompelledto
observethatIndiahasadisreputablerecordofroad
accidents.Thereisanonchallantattitudeamongthe
drivers.TheyfeelthattheyaretheEmperorsofallthey
survey.Drunkennesscontributestocarelessdrivingwhere
theotherpeoplebecometheirprey.Thepoorfeelthat
theirlivesarenotsafe,thepedestriansthinkofuncertainty
andthecivilizedpersonsdriveinconstantfearbutstill
apprehensiveabouttheobnoxiousattitudeofthepeople
whoprojectthemselvesaslargerthanlife.Insuch
obtainingcircumstances,weareboundtoobservethatthe
lawmakersshouldscrutinize,relookandrevisitthe
sentencingpolicyinSection304A,IPC.Wesaysowith
immenseanguish.
429.
ItisobservedbytheHonbleDivisionBenchoftheHonble
Bombay High Court in case of Alister Pareira v/s. State of

Maharashtraasunder:
85. Thus,theCourthastoconsiderthequestionof
quantumofpunishmentguidedbytheacceptedpreceptsof
criminaljurisprudence.Thepunishmentinflicteduponan
accusedshouldnotbesolenientastoresultinrendering
theadministrationofcriminaljusticealaughingstock.It
...237/
..237..
Judgment
shouldalsonotbesoharshthatithurtsthejudicial
conscience.Punishmentinsubstanceshouldbepunitiveso
astoactasadeterrentforcommissionofsuchcrimesand
mustbefoundedontheconceptofreasonablenessrelatable
tothegivenfactsandcircumstancesofthecase.
430.
Having given my anxious thought to the arguments
advancedbyld.AdvocateMr.Shivadeandld.SPPMr.Gharatandalso
havingregardtothenatureoftheoffenceandthemannerinwhichthe
incident had taken place, I find that submission of ld. Advocate Mr.
Shivade cannot be accepted. One cannot compare the punishment
awardedinthedifferentcases.Insomecases,punishmentawardednot
morethan2yearsdoesnotmeanthatinthepresentcasealsothecourt
hastopasssimilarpunishment.Factsofeverycasearedifferentaslaid
downbytheDivisionBenchoftheHonbleHighCourtinAlisterPareira
caseinpara85.TheCourthastoconsiderthequestionofquantumof
punishmentguidedbytheacceptedpreceptsofcriminaljurisprudence.
As Shri Shivade made submission at bar that the accused deposited
Rs.19LacsintheproceedingintheHonbleHighCourtwaybackinthe
year2002,inmyopinion,insuchsituation,itwillnotbeproperto
directtheaccusedagaintopaycompensation. Hence,inmyopinion,
thefollowingorderwouldmeettheendsofjustice.Thus,Ianswerall
thepointsaccordinglyandproceedtopassthefollowingorder:
ORDER
1.
AccusedSalmanSalimKhanisconvictedu/s.235(2)ofthe
CodeofCriminalProcedurefortheoffencepunishableu/s.304IIofthe
...238/
..238..
Judgment
IndianPenalCodeandsentencedtosufferRigorousImprisonmentfora
periodoffive(5)yearsandtopayfineofRs.25,000/(RupeesTwenty
FiveThousandonly),indefaulttosufferRigorousImprisonmentfora
periodofsix(6)months.
2.
AccusedSalmanSalimKhanisalsoconvictedu/s.235(2)of
theCodeofCriminalProcedurefortheoffencepunishableu/s.338of
theIndianPenalCodeandsentencedtosufferSimpleImprisonmentfor
a period of one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs.500/ (Rupees Five
Hundredonly),indefaulttosufferSimpleImprisonmentforaperiodof
one(1)month.
3.
theIndianPenalCodeandsentencedtosufferSimpleImprisonmentfor
aperiodofthree(3)monthsandtopayfineofRs.500/(RupeesFive
Hundredonly),indefaulttosufferSimpleImprisonmentforaperiodof
one(1)month.
4.
theCodeofCriminalProcedurefortheoffencepunishableu/s.134r/w.
Sec.187oftheMotorVehiclesAct,1988andsentencedtosufferSimple
Imprisonment for a period of two (2) months and to pay fine of
Rs.500/ (Rupees Five Hundred only), in default to suffer Simple
Imprisonmentforaperiodoffifteen(15)days.
...239/
5.
..239..
Judgment
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/ (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default to suffer Simple
Imprisonmentforaperiodofone(1)month.
6.
theCodeofCriminalProcedurefortheoffencepunishableu/s.3(1)r/w.
181ofthe Motor VehiclesAct,1988andsentenced tosufferSimple
Imprisonment for a period of two (2) months and to pay fine of
Rs.500/ (Rupees Five Hundred only), in default to suffer Simple
Imprisonmentforaperiodofseven(7)days.
7.
Allthesubstantivesentencesshallrunconcurrently.
8.
Theaccusedisonbail.Heshallsurrenderhisbailbonds.
9.
Set off be given to the accused u/s.428 of the Code of
CriminalProcedurefortheperiodundergonebyhimintheprison.
10.
Theseizedarticlesbedestroyedafterappealperiodisover.
11.
Unmarkedarticles,ifany,bedestroyedafterappealperiod
isover.
...240/
12.
..240..
Judgment
ThevehiclewasreturnedtotheaccusedSalmanKhanon
Supurtnama(Bond).TheSupurtnama(Bond)becancelledafterappeal
period.
JudgmentisdictatedandpronouncedinopenCourt.
Date:06.05.2015
(D.W.Deshpande)
AdditionalSessionsJudge
Gr.Bombay
Dateofdictation
:21to24.04.2015,27to30.04.2015&02&06.05.2015
DateofTranscription :21to24.04.2015,27to30.04.2015&02&06.05.2015
Dateofsignature
:06.05.2015
DateofdeliverytoC.C.S.:
.../

Salman Khan's Trial Court Judgment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salman Khan's Trial Court Judgment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salman Khan's Trial Court Judgment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exh.

on the allegation that in the intervening night of 27.9.2002 and

Khan was also having a bodyguard (PW6 Balu Laxman) at relevant

At about 01.30 a.m. the accused and Kamal Khan came

to J.W. Mariot Hotel. The accused was driving the vehicle.

in presence of PW1 Sambha Gauda. The spot was shown by the

PW26alsomade inquirywiththe complainant Ravindra

In the incident, Nurulla was expired and PW2 Muslim

Shaikh, PW3MannuKhan,PW4Mohd.Kalim IqbalPathan,PW11

PW26 Kadam also visited Galaxi Apartment where the

On 29.09.2002 PW19 Rajendra Keskar, RTO Inspector,

PW27 Kisan Shengal was working as a Senior Police

PW27 Investigating Officer Shengal also recorded

statement of Ram Adhar Pandey on the spot. He also visited J.W.

Shengal also collected the hotel bills (Exh.50A to Exh.50D) about

PW27 Shengal also collected parking tag from PW12

IPC and accordingly, information was submitted to the Metropolitan

The accusedvoluntarilysurrenderedin the police station

The ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra,

It is pertinent to note that the accused filed the

Miscellaneous Application bearing No.463/03 in the Sessions Court

It appears that the then InCharge Sessions Judge Shri

No.2467/2003 u/s.482 of the Cr. P.C. in the Hon'ble Bombay High

pursuant to the Judgment of the High Court, the Metropolitan

The ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case

At the relevant time, he was working as a

Present on the spot after hearing the

Was working at the relevant time in

Custom Clearing Agent, cleared the vehicle

Worked as a Counter clerk in American

Assistant Chemical Analyser, did analysis of

PW20Dr.Shashikant Medical Officer in J.J. Hospital in the year

He had taken the blood sample to Kalina

Assistant Inspector in RTO examined by the

Woman Police Naik, examined by the

Brother of complainant Ravindra Patil

Recorded FIR of Ravindra Patil and also

Before recording evidence of PW26 Rajendra Genbapu

vide Exh.171A. According to the accused, there were four persons

Following points arise for my consideration and I have

8. Does the prosecution prove that the

According to ld. SPP Mr. Gharat, it is not disputed that

According to the ld. SPP, there is also evidence of the

Further it is contended by ld. SPP Mr. Gharat that the

accusedhadadmitted aboutthe occurrence of the accidentand also

The ld. SPP Mr. Gharat contended that the cross

examination of all the prosecution witnesses and the probabilities

According to ld. SPP Gharat, thus, when the defence is

According to ld. SPP Mr. Gharat, the evidence of DW1

AshokSinghcannotbe acceptedashe isagot up witness. Till the

evidence is looked into, it will demonstrate that the prosecution has

levelled against the accused. According to Mr. Shivade, the ld.

Further it is contended that the injured witnesses were

car and car fell down. Accordingto Mr.Shivade,Nurulla sustained

The prosecution has tendered in evidence the following

Theld.Advocate Mr.Shivade vehementlysubmittedthat

In crossexamination PW1 Gauda also admitted that

Whether the evidence of Ravindra Himmatrao Patil

recorded before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,