THE DRINK AND DRIVE SAGA An Analysis

STARRING S a l m a n K h a n

I n d i a n J u d i c i a r y &

R a v i n d r a Pa t i l

G u e s t A p p e a r a n c eA s h o k S i n g h

THE INCIDENT•Accused Salman Khan, along with singer friend Kamal Khan and Ravindra Patil, his bodyguard from the state police department went out on a Toyota Land Cruiser on the night of 27.09.2002.•Their first destination was ‘The Rain Bar’.•Then they visited the ‘J.W. Marriot Hotel’.

THE INCIDENT•At around 2.15 am on 28.09.2002, they left the Hotel and drove towards the accused’s house.•Salman Khan was at the driver’s seat and said to be drunk according to the conclusions of Sessions Court, Mumbai.•At St. Andrews Road, Salman Khan was driving the Vehicle at around 90 to 100 kmph, he was cautioned by his bodyguard to slow down as there was a right turn ahead.•He did not pay any heed to it.

THE INCIDENT•He could not control the car on the right turn and drove it over the footpath where people were sleeping. •The car ran over the persons sleeping there and rammed into the shutter of American Laundry, going 3 ½ feet inside the shop.• A furious mob gathered around the place of incident. Ravindra Patil pacified them by showing his Police ID while, Salman Khan and Kamal Khan Abandoned the place

THE INCIDENT•Police arrived at the spot.•5 people were found under the vehicle.•Narulla, the only deceased in this incident, was found dead when taken to Bhabha Hospital.

THE VEHICLE

AFTERMATH•Salman Khan was found at his lawyer’s house the next day.•RTO inspector found no mechanical defect in the vehicle•No Driving Licence was produced from Salman Khan’s side.•Vehicle was found to be registered at a false address.•The level of alcohol in Salman Khan’s blood next day was found to be higher than permissible limits.

CHARGESHEET Initially, Salman Khan was charged under the following offences- s.304 A of the IPC- Causing death by negligence s.279 of the IPC -Rash driving or riding on a public way s. 338 of the IPC – Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others s.3  r/w.181 of the Moto Vehicles Act – Driving without a valid licence. s.134 of the Motor Vehicles Act -Duty of driver in case of accident.

REFRAMING OF CHARGES•Initially booked under 304A, on the application of Public Prosecutor, 304II was found to be applicable.•Appealed, HC quashed the framing of charges by Sessions court.•SC set aside order of Trial court as well as HC, saying that “It should be left on the court trying the case” to “Alter or modify any such charge”.

GENERAL DEFENCE •Narula’s death caused during rescue and not due to accident.•One of the Panchs was a regular police Panch, can’t be trusted.•Police implicated Salman under media pressure.

ISSUES 1. Whether Ravindra Patil’s evidence admissible? 2. Whether Salman Khan was driving the car ? 3. Accident or Recklessness ? 4. Was the driver drunk? 5. 304-II or 304A ?

1. RAVINDRA PATIL’S EVIDENCE 1. Question was whether his evidence infront of MM was admissible in sessions court 2. Patil succumbed to TB in 2007 3. Public prosecutor – Admissible u/s 33 of Evidence Act. 4. Defence – Proceedings u/s 304a and 304-II widely different. No opportunity to cross examine witness. Not admissible.

Held – Admissible. Ingredients are same, except knowledge. Every person has knowledge of not driving rashly and not to drink and drive.

2. WHO WAS DRIVING THE CAR? 1. Most important issue. 2. Defence propounded the theory of Ashok Singh being the driver. 3. Theory – 4 people in car – Ashok Singh on wheel – tyre burst – pure accident. 4. Defence attacked the sole testimony of Ravindra Patil as unreliable.

2. WHO WAS DRIVING THE CAR? 5. Prosecution – Where was Ashok Singh all these years? Why was he silent when his master was being prosecuted for years?

Held – The evidence from prosecution corroborates and it was Salman Khan driving the vehicle, beyond reasonable doubt.

3. WAS THE ACCIDENT AVOIDABLE?

1. Defence’s proposed theory – incident due to tyre burst – Ashok Singh couldn’t control the vehicle – rammed into American Laundry. 2. Defence said vehicle was slow – accidents happen at slow speed too (case law) 3. Prosecution –Car was SUV – used to rough terrain – Vehicle had ABS – Tubeless Tyres

Held – Defence themselves claiming slow speed – tubeless tyres and ABS make any locking of steering wheel improbable – No tyre burst.

4. WAS THE ACCUSED DRUNK ? 1. Defence Proposed that blood samples were not taken properly, rather negligently. 2. Alcohol level due to fermentation. 3. The Rain Bar’s Manager – a. Salman was regular there. b. Was drinking clear liquid. c. No smell of alcohol when the met. 4. Prosecution – Stressed on the double alcohol level than permissible – Proved that Clear liquid could be Bacardi Rum – Medical evidence against Salman.

Held- Accused was drunk.

5. 304-II OR 304A 1. Court discussed the element of ‘Knowledge’ very thoroughly. Taking examples from major legal dictionaries and Supreme Court’s judgements. 2. It was held that, every prudent man has knowledge not to drink and drive, not to drive rashly, not to drive without a driving licence etc.

Held – knowledge was proved. Hence, guilty under 304-II

SENTENCING 1. Defence – Cited dozens of case laws where 2 to 3 years were awarded even for 5 to 7 deaths in cases of 304-II. 2. Landmark Alistar Pariera Case was cited. 3. Judge while citing the same case’s para 85 observed – Each case has own merits and demerits.

SENTENCING 4. Prosecution pressed for the maximum punishment. 5. Defence pleaded for leniency citing “Being Human” and Salman Khan’s charitable work. 6. Defence also pleaded court that accused is ready to pay any amount of compensation and also stressed on the long trial faced by accused.

SENTENCING Held – Salman Khan found guilty of all offences 1. u/s 304-II of IPC – 5 years RI and 25,000 Rs. fine. 2. u/s 338 of IPC – 1 year SI and 500 Rs. fine. 3. u/s 337 of IPC – 3 months SI and 500 Rs. fine. 4. u/s.134 r/w. Sec.187 of the MV Act – 2 months SI and 500 Rs. fine. 5. u/s.185 of the MV Act – 6 months SI and 2000 Rs. fine. 6. u/s.3(1) r/w. 181 of the MV Act – 2 months SI and 500 Rs. fine.

BAIL•Barely hours after the judgement, Salman Khan, represented by Senior Adv. Harish Salve was granted interim bail by Bombay HC.•Ground for bail – No one can be arrested based on a Summarised Court Order.•Period for bail- 2 days.

BAIL•On 8th May 2015, Bombay HC granted Salman Khan interim bail on the following grounds- •HC observed there were several arguable points, especially whether 304a or 304-ii was applicable.•HC also observed – Normal rule in sentence less than 7 years is suspension of sentence after the appeal is submitted.

PUBLIC REACTION•Provided Salman Khan’s popular persona, there was a huge outcry after the sessions court judgement.•Singer Abhijit and Model Actress Farah khan had FIR registered against them in Muzaffarpur following their insensitive tweets.•One fan reportedly tried killing himself around Bombay HC while bail proceedings were going on.•A minority of public appreciated the decision.