High Court took Salman Khan’s stand as “gospel truth”, say victim’s wife & son in Supreme Court

The widow and son of the sole victim, Noorulla Shafik, in the Salman Khan hit and run case have moved the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court verdict acquitting Khan. They have also sought compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure..In the petition, drawn by advocates KT Thomas and Rahul Srivastava and filed by advocates Vipin Nair and PB Suresh, the petitioners have assailed the High Court judgment on various grounds..One of their contentions is that the High Court erred in holding that Section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1872 was not applicable to the evidence of the complainant, Ravindra Himmatrao Patil..“The said Ravindra Himmatrao Patil was the complainant in the present case, and also an eyewitness to the entire incident, as one of the three persons present in the car. His statement was recorded before the ACMM, Bandra before the present case was committed to the Court of Sessions after framing of Charge for offence u/s 304 Part II. The Respondent No.1 had also cross examined the said Ravindra Himmatrao Patil. Ravindra Himmatrao Patil expired on 03.10.2007. The Court of Sessions, in its judgment dated 06.05.2015 had taken the aid of Section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to adopt the said evidence. .However, the Hon’ble High Court of the Bombay High Court took the contrary view that Section 33 would not be applicable to the said evidence. The High Court failed to appreciate that the essential ingredients for the application of Section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1872 were all fulfilled in the present case. The Hon’ble High Court failed to note that the evidence of Ravindra Patil would be unchanged despite the additional charge u/s. 304, pt. II, IPC.”.The petitioners have also submitted that the claim that a driver was at the helm of the car, and not Salman Khan was disproved by evidence in the trial court and the High Court failed to take note of the same..They have also contended that the fact that Salman Khan had run away from the scene of crime was an indicator of his guilt..The petitioners have also come down on the High Court contending that it accepted the stand taken by Salman as “gospel truth”..“…the Hon’ble High Court erred in accepting the testimony of the Defence Witness and the stand taken by the accused as the gospel truth, against the teeth of all the evidence available in the present case. The stand taken by the Respondent No.1 can be summed up as: (1) that he was not driving the vehicle in question; (2) that he had not consumed any alcohol; and (3) that the incident was an accident resulting from burst tyre. The Respondent No.1 also produced DW-1, who testified that it was he who was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident. It is submitted that the testimony of DW-1 is highly suspect and incapable of being accepted. The said testimony has to be weighed against the testimony of the Complainant Ravindra Patil. .It has been established that Ravindra Patil was an independent witness, and it is also an admitted fact that he was an eye-witness to the incident in question. It is evident that the Respondent No.1 has exercised his substantial influence to produce DW-1 as a got-up witness. It is significant to note that when the Respondent No.1 had the opportunity to cross-examine the Complainant Ravindra Patil, no question was put to him regarding DW-1. Further, it is pertinent to note that the incident in question took place in 2002, and had attracted substantial public attention due to the position of the Respondent No.1. DW-1 expects the Court to believe that his conscience was awoken belatedly after almost 15 years, despite having been silent on the incident all throughout. The said stand is unacceptable….”.Most importantly, the petitioners have claimed compensation under Section 357 and 357A of the CrPC. They have submitted that the deceased Noorulla was the sole earning member of the family and his loss rendered the family destitute and hopeless..“It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners are living in utter penury in a slum without even the basic necessities of life. They have suffered immensely ever since the death of their eldest family member in the year 2002. Despite the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court and the statutory recognition provided under 357 and 357 A of the CrPC, no compensation has ever been paid. The 1st petitioner is doing menial labour job at construction sites. The 2nd petitioner is also working in odd jobs on a daily basis as a domestic help. The family also consists of three daughters of the 2nd petitioner. They have no permanent source of employment and both of them are uneducated and illiterate. They are somehow carrying on with their lives with the help of good Samaritans and an NGO by name ‘Priya Janahit Sewa Foundation’.”.They have claimed that the courts below committed a serious error in not allowing any compensation to the victims despite the Supreme Court holding that such a right also flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India..They have, therefore, sought for a direction to be issued to Salman Khan to pay compensation..This is not the only appeal filed against the Bombay High Court’s decision. The appeal filed by the Maharashtra government is scheduled to be heard on February 19.. Image taken from here.