The Maharashtra gvoernment on Friday engaged attorney general Mukul Rohatgi to argue in the Supreme Court that a Mumbai trial court had rightly convicted actor Salman Khan in the 2002 hit-and-run case and said he was acquitted by a “fallacious, perverse and improper” judgement of the Bombay high court.

NEW DELHI: The Maharashtra government on Friday engaged attorney general Mukul Rohatgi to argue in the Supreme Court that a Mumbai trial court had rightly convicted actor Salman Khan in the 2002 hit-and-run case and said he was acquitted by a “fallacious, perverse and improper” judgement of the Bombay high court.

Appearing before a bench of Justices J S Khehar and C Nagappan, the AG said the HC order was “more than perverse and improper” as it discarded statements of eye witnesses as well as that of Salman’s bodyguard who had deposed that the actor was at the wheel at the time of accident.

One person was killed and four were injured in the accident. The trial court had convicted him and awarded a five-year imprisonment. The AG said the HC had brushed aside many findings on facts through a “wishy-washy” verdict.

Giving a flashback, Rohatgi detailed the sequence of events alleged to have taken place on the night of September 28, 2002, when the accident happened. He said the filmstar along with his friend Kamal Khan had gone to Rain Bar at 11 pm where he had alcohol. They left the bar after it was closed at 1:30 am. They went to a hotel thereafter and Salman was at the wheel driving back home when the accident took place at 3 am. The actor fled the site after the accident.

He said that a staff of the hotel in his statement said Salman was at the wheel of SUV and his bodyguard also told the magistrate that the filmstar was driving the car. The AG said that alcohol level in Salman’s blood was found to be double than the normal level when he was tested 12 hours after the accident.

Terming the HC order as “travesty of justice”, the AG said it had erred in discarding the statements of eye witnesses and police version and relying on the statement of Salman’s family driver who surfaced 12 years after the accident and claimed to be driving the car. “How can a driver remain silent for 12 years and surface all of a sudden. The driver’s statements is absolutely false. He was simply trying to protect his master,” he said.

The bench, after a brief hearing, adjourned the case as Justice Khehar was to preside over a Constitution bench. It, however, said the statements of prosecution witnesses are most important and it will decide admitting the plea only after examining those statements, including that of driver.

“It is important to examine the nature of questions put to prosecution witnesses. We want to go through the questions posed to witnesses on the issue of who was driving the car. We will make up our mind only after examining it,” the bench and did not issue notice to Salman on the state government’s appeal.

Salman’s counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, told the bench that the AG had woven a very good story on the accident but he had also lot to say to counter his points.

The HC had held that Salman could not be be convicted on the basis of evidence submitted by the prosecution and also pointed out “various shortcomings in the investigation and prosecution’s evidence”. It had said the prosecution had not convincingly proved he was drunk or at the wheel of his SUV at the time of the accident.

