salman's judgement-an overview....

SALMAN’S JUDGMENT – AN OVERVIEW
The recent conviction of Salman Khan for poaching a Chinkara has drawn the attention of the media, the public and others. Opinions were being expressed in print and television that Salman received a harsh punishment of five years jail sentence due to his celebrity status. It may be recalled that even during the period when hunting was legal – use of wheeled vehicle and spotlights to blind the hunted species was prohibited.
The judgment delivered on April 10, 2006 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur makes for interesting reading. The Court convicted Salman Khan of hunting Chinkara and co-accused Goverdhan for abetting the offence and gave a detailed and well reasoned Judgment of 110 pages in Hindi. Given below is an overview of this lengthy judgment by our advocates. Full english translation of this judgment follows the overview.
In presenting its case to the Court, prosecution examined 38 witnesses including Harish Dulani (the driver), Lalit Boda, Ashok Patani, the Investigating Officer of this case and other witnesses. In addition to deposition by witnesses, other direct and indirect evidences and chain of circumstances eventually favored the prosecution.
On January 24, 2002 Harish Dulani appeared in the Court and gave an eyewitness account of the incident. According to this witness, on September 28, 1998 Salman shot a Chinkara from his vehicle, came down and slit the throat of the animal with a knife. The Court found sufficient evidence against accused Salman Khan and Goverdhan Singh from the facts revealed by Harish Dulani. The statement of the witness was later confirmed by other witnesses. Recovery of evidences as well as spot identification was carried out by the investigating team. Although, the testimony of Harish Dulani was no doubt integral to the conviction of Salman Khan, there are other evidences that were relied upon by the prosecution in strengthening their case against Salman Khan and the co-accused.
The case took an interesting turn when in the year 2002 Harish Dulani became untraceable and summons and bailable warrants were issued against him on number of occasions. Prosecution made all possible efforts to procure the presence of this witness. It is relevant to mention here that Harish Dulani himself filed an application in the Court, in addition to submitting applications to Additional S. P, Inspector General of Police and Home Minister about threats received by him from Salman Khan and his associates. On April 07, 2006, three days before this judgment, accused Salman Khan filed an application for recalling Harish Dulani. With this application, a photocopy of the documents linked to the properties sold by Harish Dulani to a third person was also annexed. The fact that the photocopy of the said documents reached into the hands of accused Salman Khan one day after the alleged television interview of Harish Dulani and his subsequent retraction of statements made in the interview, assisted the Court to establish this argument of apprehension to be correct as forwarded by the prosecution and that he had been under the custody and influence of accused Salman Khan. The Court accepted the evidence of Harish Dulani as admissible under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and directed that he should be tried for perjury.
The Court, while delivering its Judgment took into account the following facts relied upon by the Prosecution:
The accused Salman Khan stayed in Ummed Bhavan (Palace Hotel),
He drove in an open top vehicle, armed with deadly weapons on the night of the incident and reached the place of occurrence,
Discovery of hair / blood of the animal from the vehicle and the place of incident.
Recovery of weapons, pellets and cartridges from various locations,
Deposition by Shivchand, a witness to the weapons brought by Udai Raghavan from Mumbai residence of Salman Khan and surrendering these to the Investigating Officer.
The surrendered knife by Sohail Khan brother of Salman Khan to the investigating officer Ashok Patani which was allegedly used for killing the Chinkara.
Seized weapons found fit for firing and also the fact that it was used earlier.
These recoveries and other evidences established the fact that the accused indeed went with the intention of hunting the deer.
These circumstances as per the prosecution account helped in strengthening the case which included oral and documentary evidences provided by the prosecution. In addition, the place of occurrence and the identification of the crime scene confirmed by the witnesses and the accused gave further impetus to the case.
The Court also observed that in the prosecution account, at times the word ‘deer’ and elsewhere the word ‘Chinkara’has been used, however, this view was clarified in later part of the Judgment when the F. S. L. Serological examination found Chinkara blood stained earth from the site of hunting and skinning.
While convicting Salman Khan, the Court took into account his argument that merely by virtue of the accused being popular, it is inappropriate to consider this status as discrimination in the society. The Court fully endorsed its conformity with this argument and held to the effect that the principal of equality before law is applicable to the extent of conviction. However, the question of the quantum of sentence was a different aspect. Accused Salman Khan had not committed this offence under any compulsion or to satisfy his hunger but in fact committed the offence to prove his prowess and superiority. Hence, any argument of principal of equality is not sustainable with regard to the quantum of sentence. Also the fact that the accused is already convicted in another case and a different case pending against him, the Court did not consider it proper to adopt a lenient stance keeping in view the entire facts, circumstances of the case, character and conduct of the accused.
Disclaimer
While interpretating / translating this judgment from its original Hindi version, utmost care has been taken to retain the original facts. Wildlife Trust of India will not be responsible for any error whatsoever, or misinterpretation which might have occurred unintentionally while preparing this document.
In case of any discrepancies, which the reader may notice in this translated judgment, please feel free to bring it to our notice. In case of any doubt, or information or authenticity of this document, the reader may refer to the original Hindi version of this judgment which is available with us.