Prosecution wants to bolster case against Salman

As the trial of Bollywood actor Salman Khan in the 2002 hit-and-run case reaches  a crucial phase, the prosecution team of Mumbai Police on Monday moved the court wanting to lead evidence of two crucial witnesses in the case.

The evidence of the two witness which are to be tabled before the Mumbai Sessions court are that of Ravindra Patil, Salman Khan’s bodyguard, who died in 2007 and a government doctor, who had conducted the postmortem of the victim.   The doctor is currently settled in the United States.

Their statements had been recorded in the Magistrate’s court at Bandra. Appearing before Additional Sessions Judge D W Deshpande, who is presiding over the trial, public prosecutor Pradeep Gharat filed Patil’s death certificate which stated that he had died of tuberculosis.
Salman’s lawyer Srikant Shivade admitted that the complainant had died but disputed that he had died of TB.

It may be recalled that Patil had, in his deposition before the Magistrate court, admitted that he warned Salman not to drive rashly but the actor did not heed his advice. However, the case was transferred by the Magistrate to sessions court in 2013 after the charge of culpable homicide was invoked against the actor.

The court would give its ruling on the prosecution’s application to lead evidence of the deceased complainant on Friday. On the same day, the Judge Deshpande would also pass an order on prosecution’s application seeking a direction to  Salman Khan to produce his licence.
Chemical analyst fumbles

A chemical analyst, who conducted the blood alcohol level test on Salman Khan, on Monday fumbled before the trial court as the defence counsel bombarded him with wide range of technical questions.

When asked what happens when oxidising agents react, he said that he was not aware. When asked what were the oxidising agents in the test involving blood samples of Khan, he said that it potassium dichromate and sulfuric acid.

Shivade, during the intense cross-examination, also went on to ask whether he has now studied about isometric titration as during the previous hearing he had replied in negative.

When asked the chemical name of iodine solution, he said he was not aware. “I am asking all these questions as all these pertains to the test that you have conducted,” Shivade said. When asked whether iodine is kept in a transparent bottle or a dark bottle, the chemical analyst replied: “It is kept in a coloured bottle.”

Asked about the reasoning behind preserving it in a coloured bottle, he said: “I do not know.”

When asked how soon must the iodine solution be used, he said that it has to be “used fresh”. Asked to specify what he understands from “fresh”, he could not give a satisfactory reply. When asked whether iodine is volatile or non-volatile, he could not reply. Asked what is catalysation, he said: “I cannot say”, and when asked a supplementary on what is “redox titration”, he said: “No”. 

“I am asking all this as you have done all these tests,” Shivade said, and asked whether iodine evaporates, to which the analyst said that he was not aware. When asked whether he has checked the accuracy of the volumetric glass when it came to him, he said that he cannot say.

When asked whether the colour of the indicator depends on the colour perception of a person, he said it was so. However, when asked whether it could be misjudged, he said: “I cannot say”.

To another question, whether improper reagents or solutions can affect in the reading, the witness said: “Yes”.