Adding a new twist to the 2002 hit-and-run case against him, accused and actor Salman Khan on Friday introduced the possibility of the death of the sole victim due to the dropping of the car by the crane which lifted it after the accident. He thereby pleaded that the grievous charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder cannot be made out against him.
"We can't rule out the possibility that the deceased might have been killed by the crane when it was trying to lift the car," advocate Shrikant Shivade said on Friday, while making a case that at least three eye witnesses had said that the car fell down after its bumper came out when the crane tried to lift it for the first time. He argued that it was possible that the victim was alive before that.
"The first and foremost requirement for 304 Part II 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," he said, while referring to the statement of an injured.
Injured eye witness Abdul Rauf Sheikh, who was sleeping next to the deceased victim, had said that the two of them were crying for help for around 15 to 20 minutes after the accident. Mr Shivade pointed it out on Friday, and read passages of the deceased victim's post mortem report.
The report stated that the upper part of the victim's body was crushed, he said. "Head, chest and neck, and all the internal organs were badly crushed. The head was crushed completely. If it was because of accident, would he be able to shout?" he asked, referring to Abdul Rauf's statement.
He said the deceased's lungs, larynx, were crushed completely, and he could not have shouted for help if he the injuries would have been caused due to the moving car.
He also argued that if the victim was killed due to the speeding car, then the tyre marks of the car too should have had blood on them.
"The bedsheet should have been completely soaked in blood if he was crushed by the car. If a 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 soaked in the blood on the steps of the bakery. No such blood marks are seen," he argued.
He also questioned why the police did not record the statements of the crane driver and the crane owner.
A police officer and three witnesses had said that the bumper of the car had come out when the crane had tried to lift the car after the accident for the first time. The car which was lifted a few feet above the ground, had come down after the bumper which was stuck in the crane's hook, came out. It was thereafter lifted successfully in the second attempt.
"The prosecution's case is that the car was speeding at around 90 kmph. Would the bumper have been intact in such a condition? This shows that the car was not in high speed at the time of accident," he said.
The defence is likely to conclude its arguments on Saturday.
