<p>The appeal of actor Salman Khan in the Bombay High Court against his conviction in a 14-year-old hit-and-run and drunk driving case has reached a crucial stage with the defence close to wrapping up its arguments.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The appeal is being heard by Justice A R Joshi of the Bombay High Court and Salman is represented by senior defence counsel Amit Desai.<br /><br />On November 16, Desai will complete his submissions and subsequently public prosecutor Sandeep Shinde and additional public prosecutor Purnima Kantharia would present their arguments.<br /><br />Following are some of the excerpts of major arguments:<br /><br />Testimony not proper<br /><br />The defence has questioned the validity of the evidence of police constable Ravindra Patil, the bodyguard of Salman Khan, who was the first informant and lodged the FIR. Desai had pointed out that while in the FIR registered on September 28, he had not mentioned anything about alcohol.<br /><br />Ashok Singh was driving<br /><br />Family driver Ashok Singh was behind the wheels and not Salman Khan. The defence has pointed out that while the fingerprints of Salman Khan was taken when he was in police custody by forensic experts, it has not come to light whether fingerprints from the steering wheel has been taken or not.<br /><br />Kamaal not examined<br /><br />The defence has wanted to know that Sohail Khan and Kamaal Khan should have testified as witnesses in the court. While Sohail Khan, the brother of Salman Khan could have told what happened inside the Rain Bar & Restaurant, singer Kamaal Khan, the friend of the actor, who was inside the car could have told about as to who was driving the car from JW Marriott Hotel to the place of accident.<br /><br />Blood report<br /><br />The defence has pointed out a major mismatch in the blood drawing, collection and examination process by pointed out that the amount of blood drawn at the Sir JJ Hospital at Byculla does not match with what was received at the Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina.<br /><br />Witnesses tutored<br /><br />Desai dealt with the testimony of four witnesses. For some of them, he also compared the statements made before the Bandra Magistrate Court and Mumbai Sessions Court.</p>
<p>The appeal of actor Salman Khan in the Bombay High Court against his conviction in a 14-year-old hit-and-run and drunk driving case has reached a crucial stage with the defence close to wrapping up its arguments.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The appeal is being heard by Justice A R Joshi of the Bombay High Court and Salman is represented by senior defence counsel Amit Desai.<br /><br />On November 16, Desai will complete his submissions and subsequently public prosecutor Sandeep Shinde and additional public prosecutor Purnima Kantharia would present their arguments.<br /><br />Following are some of the excerpts of major arguments:<br /><br />Testimony not proper<br /><br />The defence has questioned the validity of the evidence of police constable Ravindra Patil, the bodyguard of Salman Khan, who was the first informant and lodged the FIR. Desai had pointed out that while in the FIR registered on September 28, he had not mentioned anything about alcohol.<br /><br />Ashok Singh was driving<br /><br />Family driver Ashok Singh was behind the wheels and not Salman Khan. The defence has pointed out that while the fingerprints of Salman Khan was taken when he was in police custody by forensic experts, it has not come to light whether fingerprints from the steering wheel has been taken or not.<br /><br />Kamaal not examined<br /><br />The defence has wanted to know that Sohail Khan and Kamaal Khan should have testified as witnesses in the court. While Sohail Khan, the brother of Salman Khan could have told what happened inside the Rain Bar & Restaurant, singer Kamaal Khan, the friend of the actor, who was inside the car could have told about as to who was driving the car from JW Marriott Hotel to the place of accident.<br /><br />Blood report<br /><br />The defence has pointed out a major mismatch in the blood drawing, collection and examination process by pointed out that the amount of blood drawn at the Sir JJ Hospital at Byculla does not match with what was received at the Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina.<br /><br />Witnesses tutored<br /><br />Desai dealt with the testimony of four witnesses. For some of them, he also compared the statements made before the Bandra Magistrate Court and Mumbai Sessions Court.</p>
