You are on page 1of 5

CASE STUDY

(ANALYSIS OF SALMAN
KHAN :
HIT AND RUN CASE
)
THE CONTROVERSY
On the night of 28th September 2002, Salman
Khan’s white Toyota Land Cruiser crashed into the
pavement near the American Express Bakery at Hill
Road in Bandra, Mumbai killing one person and
injuring four others. His blood samples were taken
which showed he drank more than the permissible
limit. Subsequently, he was arrested but was
granted bail soon after. He was charged with
various provisions under IPC, Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 and Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
Earlier, the case was filed under Section 304A (rash
and negligent driving) which was later in 2003 was
converted to Section 304 Part (II) (culpable
homicide not amounting to murder) on the charges
filed by Bandra Metropolitan Magistrate Court’s
rules. The Sessions Court, which had earlier,

the key witness also the actor’s bodyguard Ravindra Patel. who filed the first FIR. The SC agreed with the Magistrate to apply Section 304 Part (II) and rejected the Bombay HC’s view and said it was “too premature a finding and ought not to have been at this stage.rejected the plea asked the Magistrate to frame charges. THE VERDICT The Bombay HC gave the judgment on 10th December 2015. “it is unnatural on the part of the conduct of Patil to say so many . It could not prove that the actor was under the influence of alcohol or was driving. took over.” During this time. he says he was “briefly” when one driver got out and the other another. The Court completely disregarding the evidence given by the eyewitness Ravindra Patil and came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the actor’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. When asked whether he was sitting in the driver’s seat. The witnesses claim that the actor was on the driving seat but the actor denied the claims and said that his left door was jammed. Ashok Singh. Justice Joshi further said. and so he had to get out of the driver’s seat. died of TB.

According to Justice Joshi in the case. the appellant cannot be convicted.” The judge also said that Ashok Singh was Salim Khan’s driver and not Salman’s who was interrogated by inspector Kishan Senghal who said that his statement was not recorded.things that he has not said in the FIR. The Maharashtra Government chose to take the case to the Supreme Court but as of now the High Court has . there has been a material improvement on drunkenness and asking Salman to drive slowly… it is more strange from the witness. no matter how differently the common man thinks. He wasn’t even driving. “On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution. The trial court had noted that Singh had appeared after 13 years of the incident to the court.Who was driving ? The Defense held that Salman Khan wasn’t drunk. The Court also did not accept the fact that the tyre burst and said that the prosecution has not been able to prove the fact that the tyre burst either before the accident or after the accident.” QUESTIONS 1. the Court did not accept Singh’s version that was driving and not the actor. However.

279 (rash driving). 427(mischief).State the relevant provisions relating to the case .rejected the theory that Ashok Singh.What conclusions can be drawn ? We all know what happened that night and who was behind the wheel. the question remains unanswered 2.driving without licence  Bombay Prohibition Act-driving after liquor consumption 3. 337 and 338(causing grievous hurt by endangering life or personal safety). They say “if the Court had to acquit him they could have done it long time . By acquitting Salman and not accepting that Ashok was behind the wheel. what will they do?” they say. They demand justice and compensation from the actor. then who will? “If the Government couldn’t do anything. But as the judgment has been in favor of the actor.  IPC – 304A (rash and negligent driving which has a punishment uptil two years). 134(abetment of assault). who took 13 years to speak that he was behind the wheel.  Motor Vehicles Act. the victims feel helpless. They have waited long for justice. Most of them are permanently injured and cannot work now. They feel that if the Government is not going to help them.

back”. . It is the duty of the state to protect its people.