Kamaal Khan should be examined: Salman defence

Justice A R Joshi asks to file state's response by today
Last Updated : 16 November 2015, 19:03 IST

Follow Us :


In a fresh twist to the 14-year-old drunken-driving and hit-and-run case involving Salman Khan, his defence team on Monday demanded examination of singer, actor Kamaal Khan as a witness before the Bombay High Court.

The 43-year-old Kamaal Khan, is a family friend of Salman Khan and he had accompanied him from the Galaxy Apartments at Bandra to Rain bar and restaurant at Vile Parle and then to the J W Marriott at Juhu and was in the car when the accident took place.

Khan’s lawyer Amit Desai moved an application before Justice A R Joshi, who asked the chief public prosecutor and government pleader Sandeep Shinde to file the state’s say by Tuesday through a written reply or verbal submissions. “Under section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Bombay High Court can summon a witness,” Desai said,
adding: “You have the power to summon him...the court cannot be a mute spectator.”
However, public prosecutor Poornima Kantharia said: “We are opposing it straight away.”
Justice Joshi in his brief order said: “The said application needs to be numbered, it must be done by the end of day and copy be given to public prosecutor,  the state to file reply by next day and further arguments would continue tomorrow...the state to file a written reply or argue in court on whatever their stand is.”

“Kamaal Khan’s statement was recorded under 161 of the CrPc by the Bandra police station, he was listed as a witness in the Bandra Magistrate's Court, he was listed as a witness in the Mumbai Sessions Court, but was not examined as a witness...the first informant Ravindra Patil has said that the Kamaal Khan was in the car,” Desai said, adding that this is a criminal trial and since the first informant who registered the complaint and FIR was no more and  was not available for cross-examination, he should have been examined. 

Desai also said that if the prosecution suspected that since he is a friend of the appellant — and suspected that he has been bought over, they could have given an “adverse inference”.

“But since, he has been listed as a prosecution witness in the Session court in June 2014, they did not suspect that he has been bought over.”

He also pointed out that since there are not  too many eyewitnesses, the prosecution cannot apply its “prosecutorial discretion” of not calling Kamaal Khan.  

Published 16 November 2015, 19:03 IST

Follow us on :

Follow Us