Missing Driver, Mystery Pellets How Salman Khan Was Acquitted

Jodhpur: Bollywood actor Salman Khan was acquitted on Monday by the High Court of Rajasthan in two cases involving chinkaras poaching in Jodhpur in 1998.

The court held that pellets recovered from the dead chinkaras were not fired from Khan's licensed gun.

The jeep driver who was used by Khan and his co-stars on his alleged hunting mission has been missing, weakening the prosecution's case against the movie star.

Khan, 50, was jailed in 2007 for nearly a week for shooting an endangered gazelle in 1998.

Khan's appeals against the sentence in the two cases relating to the poaching of chinkaras in Bhawad and Mathania were allowed by the High Court, which acquitted him in both cases. Judge Nirmal Jit Kaur rejected the State Government's plea against the actor.

Three Chinkaras, Two Convictions

Two distinct cases were recorded against Khan under section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act by two chinkaras poaching in Bhawad village on 26 and 27 September 1998 and a chinkara in Mathania (the Ghoda farm ) From 28 to 29 September 1998.

Sallu2

Salman Khan (C) is escorted by police to a court in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, on 13 April 2001. (Photo: Reuters)

The court of first instance (CJM) had convicted him in both cases, which sentenced him to one year and five years imprisonment on 17 February 2006 and 10 April 2006 respectively.

The convictions were challenged by Khan in the Court of Sessions, which dismissed the appeal in the Mathanias case and transferred the appeal to the High Court in the Bhawads case, where two appeals were already pending from the State Government.

The hearing on both petitions in the Supreme Court had begun on November 16, 2015 and ended on May 13, 2016, after which Judge Nirmal Jit Kaur had reserved his sentence.

Lost Driver and Mystery Pellets

While holding the case in the Supreme Court, defense lawyer Mahesh Bora had argued that Khan had been falsely framed in these cases simply by the statements of a key witness Harish Dulani, the driver of the vehicle, allegedly used in poaching in both cases.

Bora argued that Dulani was never available to them for cross examination and therefore their statements could not be relied on Khan's conviction. He also argued that both cases have been built on circumstantial evidence and there were no eyewitnesses or material evidence against Khan.

In addition, the court's main observation was that it did not find that pellets recovered from the vehicle matched those recovered from Khan's possession.

The defense also firmly argued that these pellets had been planted since they were not found in the vehicle during the Forest Department inspection and were found there surprisingly by the police later.

No smoking gun

Likewise, the defense also argued that Khan was not in possession of weapons allegedly used in poaching and was brought to Jodhpur from Mumbai only at the request of the Forest Department.

It was also argued that the pellets produced belonged to the air gun, which has no ability to kill an animal.

In his response, lawyer KL Thakur argued that Dulani was present twice in court, but the defense did not examine him.

Thakur citing the statements of the co-defendants tried to prove the case by corroborating Dulani's statements, however, some of them had become hostile in court later.

Citing the FSL report of the bloodstains taken from the Hotel Aashirwad, where the carcass was said to have been taken by Khan in the first case and blood hit the ground from the point of poaching in the second case, Thakur tried to prove Which was blood chinkaras.

The prosecution also produced the FSL report of the copyright of the vehicle in question in the second case and maintained that of six samples, four coincided showing that it was the same vehicle, which had come out of poaching.

loading...