"One cannot rule out the possibility that the pavement dweller who lost his life in September 2002, must have died because of dropping of the car by the crane on the victim, and not because actor Salman Khan had rammed his car into him," said Srikant Shivde, advocate of Salman Khan, thus adding a new twist to his defence arguments on Friday.

The defence claimed that the fact that the crane dropped the car, a Toyota Land Cruiser, before it was successful in lifting it from the spot, was clearly stated by a few witnesses in the case. The advocate thus pleaded the court that if this point is taken into consideration, the grievous section slapped against the actor could not be made out.

Shivde further read out the post mortem report of the deceased, which said that the head, chest, neck and all the internal organs of the deceased were badly crushed. Even the lungs and larynx (voice box) were crushed. "The fact that the victim and the deceased were screaming for help, clearly shows that their organs were intact. If the post mortem report is taken into consideration, can a person whose organs, including his voice box are crushed, plead for help," argued Shivde.

The defence challenged the prosecution's claim that the car was rammed into the body of the victim. "If we think of this scenario, then it is obvious that the tyre would have had the blood marks of the victim on it.""The bedsheet should have been completely soaked in blood if he was crushed by the car. If the car had run over, then all organs would be out due to the impact. If the car had run over the pool of blood, there would be some tyre marks with blood on the steps of the bakery. No such blood marks were seen," he argued.

Shivde further raised another doubt and asked why did the police not record the statements of the crane driver and the crane owner.

The defence, while arguing on the applicability of the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, said, "The first and foremost requirement for 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) is that death must be caused by the act. There has to be a live link, a direct nexus between act and death. If there are any intervening circumstances that disconnect the act with the death, then there is no case of culpable homicide at all."

The defence is conclude its arguments on Saturday.