Graver charges against Salman a blessing in disguise: Lawyers

The recent developments of the Salman Khan hitandrun case in which the court has ordered that the actor be tried for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 II of the IPC may actually turn out to be a blessing in disguise for him say criminal lawyers A charge like this sticks if the prime witness is present Since Ravindra Patil the prime witness in this case expired in October 2007 Salman may walk free feel legal experts Senior criminal lawyer Dinesh Tiwari explained the matter ldquoOne cannot rule out the systematic mischief of the police to benefit the accused in this case Though effort has been made by the prosecution to make the public believe that the police are going after Salman Khan they have failed to explain why they took so long in applying the chargesrdquo Since Ravindra Patil the prime witness in the hitandrun case expired in October 2007 Salman Khan may walk free Speaking about the death of Patil he said ldquoThe testimony of Patil recorded almost six years ago between January and March 2006 will get discarded after the police raise the charges against Salman under Section 304 IIrdquo And since Patil is no longer available to give a fresh testimony against the actor Salman may well go scotfree Tiwari added ldquoPatil was the only prime and crucial witness for the prosecution in this case All other witnesses are circumstantial witnesses for the incident As such the levying of higher charges against Salman could prove futile With fresh charges being levied the defense lawyers will be reexamining all the prosecution witnesses only to find more loopholes in the prosecutionrsquos claims which will ultimately benefit the accused as the crucial witness Ravindra Patil is no morerdquo Senior criminal lawyer Majeed Memon explained the possible reason behind the application of graver charges against the actor ldquoOver the past few years there have been many cases of irresponsible driving which have led to deaths This triggered a national debate on whether such offenders were entitled to bail soon after arrest Offences under Section 304 A are bailable under the IPC It was therefore decided that graver offence under Section 304 II be applied to meet the ends of justicerdquo Explaining how the fresh charges may work in the actorrsquos favour he said ldquoIn the Salman Khan case there is noise that the trial was protracted due to vested interests It is found that the evidence of an important eyewitness Ravindra Patil has already been recorded earlier If the charge is altered to a graver one after such evidence the accused is entitled in law to recall the witness for further crossexamination If the witness is dead and unavailable his evidence cannot be considered as complete and as such shall have to be treated as inconclusive and of no consequencerdquo he said Memon added ldquoIn the chance of a graver offence being slapped on Salman Salmanrsquos counsel would be justified in recalling witnesses for further cross examination and nonavailability of witness would lead to the evidence remaining inconclusive As such it shall have to be discarded The accused would reap the benefitrdquo Rohini Salian former chief public prosecutor who is presently representing NIA Maharashtra said ldquoOnce the witness is examined in the court under oath and crossexamined by the defense it becomes evidence Since Salman was initially charged under Section 304 A adding to or altering the offence calls for crossexamination of the witness The Sessions court will look into the merits of the case and other evidences produced by the prosecution including Ravindra Patilrsquos statement would decide what charges are made out during the final appreciation of the evidence at Sessions Court There is also a probability of the accused getting benefit as the star witness is no morerdquo Not all bad IPS officerturned lawyer Y P Singh however said that even though the prime witness Ravindra Patil is not alive his testimony before the lower court will be admissible during the trial at Sessions Court under Section 32 2 of the Indian Evidence Act Since the statement was recorded in the ordinary course of business on oath before the court and hence it will have the same evidential value and the facts stated therein could be incorporated in the fresh trial under Section 304 II