Ravindra Patil has been the key figure in this entire ordeal. He was the one with Salman Khan at the time of the accident. He was also the who said Khan was drunk and driving and that the tire on Khan's SUV was in fact intact and not blown. However, High Court Judge AR Joshi does not find any of the deceased former constable's testimony at all credible. What was Patil's motive? Was this a set up?
(Check out Salman Khan's Biography @ Wikipedia
Whatever the case, the prosecution's case is falling apart at the seams. First, the blood samples were dismissed because of improper handling by the police and now, its most important witness, who was on the scene at the accident, has been discredited by the presiding judge. This from the Indian Express, "In view of this court, he (Patil) is "wholly unreliable witness. Even if his statement has to be considered as partially reliable, there has to be corroboration in evidence which is not existing in this case."
Here is Patil's deposition, via Hindustan Times-
"On September 28, 2002, I was attached to the protection branch. I was deputed as Salman Khan's bodyguard and was to remain with him. On September 27, 2002, at 9.30pm, the accused and Kamaal Khan came out of a room at their residence and told me they were going to Rain Bar, Juhu. The accused had a Toyota Land Cruiser car with the registration number MH 01 DA 32. The accused was driving the car. They asked me to wait outside, while the accused and Kamaal went inside the hotel. The bodyguard of Sohail Khan also met me there. After a few hours, the accused and Kamaal came out. The accused sat in the driver's seat and I was sitting next to him. Kamaal was sitting in the rear.
Patil said they went to JW Marriott, where he was made to wait outside again. 'They came out at 2.15am. When the accused sat behind the wheel, I asked him whether he would be driving the car. He ignored me. The accused was driving the car at a speed of 90-100km/hour. Before reaching the Hill Road junction, I told the accused to slow down as a right turn was coming up. He ignored me again. The accused lost control of the car while taking a turn and drove right on to the footpath."'
Khan's lawyer has challenged the admissibility of Patil's statements since he could not be cross-examined. The trial court allowed Patil's statement. It is yet to be determined whether the High Court will do the same.
