Ek tha driver: Five reasons why prosecution says Salman is guilty in 2002 hit-and-run case

In the dead of the night on 28 December, thirteen years ago, a white land cruiser ran on to the narrow footpath in front of the American Express Bakery on Hill Road, Bandra in Mumbai’s suburbs. One footpath dweller died under its wheels and four others were grievously injured. The car belonged to Bollywood ‘superstar’ Salman Khan and it was alleged that the man himself was behind the wheels. What followed was a drama worthy of a Bollywood potboiler, like the many which have starred Khan as the good cop beating up baddies. Only this time, Khan seemed to be playing against type.

In between, a prime witness in the case, Khan’s former bodyguard who had said that the star was at the wheels, died of tuberculosis in 2007. That left the prosecution with just the victims to testify against the actor, who they claim was drunk and driving.

Thirteen years later, just as it started to look like the law finally had Khan in its grip, came the shocking cinematic twist: the star’s driver, Ashok Singh, came forward and declared himself guilty. It isn’t exactly clear why Singh chose this belated moment to indict himself. Perhaps, Khan was just being human (pun intended) and protecting his driver, the timing of this fortuitous confession is a bit suspicious.

The unhappy prosecution has labelled Khan’s driver a liar and questioned the authenticity of his claims. In its closing argument, the lawyers made a compelling case against Khan, raising 5 key questions.

One: Why did Ashok Singh kept quiet all this while his employer was busy fighting a long and exhausting criminal case, one that could threaten his image and livelihood. The Hindu quotes prosecutor Pradeep Gharat as saying, “Throughout a period of 12 years, he wasn’t aware, he wasn’t restless [that Salman had taken up the charge on him>. He was only thinking for a period of 12 years that wrong was going on with Salman. He still didn’t go to any understandable person or lawyer to know what he could do. Is this natural, acceptable conduct?”

Two: Why didn’t the Khans sack the criminally negligent driver? Not only did Khan take on the burden of his driver’s sins, but kept him gainfully employed, to boot. DNA quotes Gharat observing , “Singh claimed that the reason why he approached the court at the fag end of the case as a defence witness and took the responsibility of the accident was because Salim Khan (Salman’s father) had asked him to reveal the truth. However, my question is that why did Salim Khan not do the same for for so many years? Also, it is quite surprising to know that even after the family members came across the fact that their driver had committed the crime and that Salman had to face the consequences, Singh was still serving as a driver for the family.”

Three: Why was his car parked under the hotel porch? Gharat pointed to small but key piece of evidence that contradicts the driver’s account.  As all sides agree. Khan was on his way back from JW Marriott on that fateful night. At the hotel, his car, according to police records, was parked under the porch of the five star property. According to the hotel’s rules, no chauffeur driven car is allowed parking in that space and only a patron can drive in himself and park the car there. The Indian Express reports that the prosecution referred to this fact that as important proof of the fact that Salman Khan was driving the car.

Four: Why would an SUV skid on a normal Mumbai road? Khan’s driver also claimed that he had run over the footpath dwellers deliberately, but that a tyre burst had caused the car to skid and mount the footpath. Questioning the authenticity of that statement, Gharat said , “The defence of car skidding is an eyewash by the defence witness. This SUV has radial tyres whose width is more than other tyres. They can run on muddy, marshy, uneven surfaces and stones. The possibility of the tyre skidding is very remote. Also, the tyre wouldn’t get punctured for petty reasons. Even if the wheels puncture in running condition, the tyres will not burst.”  There is certainly no evidence of a burst tyre as the RTO officer deposed by the prosecution did not recall any such problem at the time – but, in Khan’’s favour is the fact that – as his garbled testimony shows – the officer wasn’t sure of very much.

Five: Why are there two different defence accounts of the chain of events? The biggest blow scored by Gharat focused on the different accounts of the night offered by the defence.  Salman Khan’s lawyers first claimed that he had tried to lift the car after it ran over the the people sleeping on the footpath. This information was furnished by the defence as proof that Khan was not drunk. However, Singh, in his confession claimed that no one was found under the wheels when the car rolled on to the footpath – which is a bizarre claim in itself. Gharat riposted, “This shows that he is a self-condemned liar. All the witnesses have said, the limbs of the victims were entangled in the tyre. Ashok had also said, he and Salman tried to lift the vehicle. If he saw nobody below the tyre, why did he try to lift the vehicle?”

The most interesting and shocking aspect of this 13-year-long drama is this: Even as the defence was denying the allegation that Salman Khan was driving the car, it had not bothered to offer to offer an alternative name. If Salman was not driving the car and in it, surely, the natural next question would be, who was driving the car then? It has taken them more than decade to answer the question, but it remains to be seen whether the judges will believe it. The prosecution certainly does not.