Mumbai: Bollywood star Salman Khan's lawyer today rejected the prosecution's claim in the 2002 hit-and-run case that the actor was drunk at the time, saying that the blood sample sent for chemical analysis was not his.
Advocate Shrikant Shivade, Khan's lawyer, claimed that the sample, which showed 62 mg of alcohol per 100 ml, had not been extracted from the actor.
Questioning the "professional competency" of the chemical analyst who performed the test, Shivade said that the prescribed procedure was not followed.
Referring to the analyst's statement in the court, the lawyer said he had received 4 ml blood sample, though 6 ml blood had been drawn from Khan for the test. "The shortfall of 2 ml is enough to draw an inference that the sample taken from accused and the one sent to lab were not the same," he said.
The test was conducted at the Forensic Science Laboratory in Kalina in suburban Mumbai which does not have certification from International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) or accreditation of National Board of Accreditation (NAB), the defence lawyer said.
"Rules were violated and hence prosecution has failed to prove that the accused's blood contained alcohol to the tune of 62 mg per 100 ml," Shivade argued before the sessions judge D W Deshpande.
Khan (49) is facing the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He is accused of ramming his SUV into a bakery in suburban Bandra on September 28, 2002, killing one person and inuring four others.
Referring to the statement of Dattatreya Balachander, the chemical analyst, Shivade said he did not know how to conduct the tests. "He is not aware of difference between quantitative and qualitative analysis....What kind of a man we are dealing with? How much can we rely on this witness?" he said.
"A ward boy sealed the bottles of blood samples, that too with an adhesive tape. The chemical analyst is not able to explain whether it could have had bearing on the results," the lawyer submitted in his final arguments.
There was `fermentation' of the blood as no preservative were added and this may have changed the results, he said.
"Moreover, he (the analyst) has consistently changed his stand in cross-examination," Shivade said, adding that it revealed that the analysis was not done properly, raising doubts about the result regarding the alcohol content.
Challenging the evidence about the cause of the mishap, the defence lawyer said examination of Khan's vehicle was carried out by a Regional Transport Officer in just 20 minutes. "Is this possible?" he said.
"This crucial witness has been changing statements over and over again. At one stage, he says he examined the vehicle on September 28, 2002 and then he says he did it on September 29, 2002."
R S Keskar, the officer, did not even have the required performa to inspect vehicles and he told the court that it was the first imported car (Toyota Land Cruiser) that he had examined, Shivade pointed out.
"He said during his training he had examined a Tata Indica... It is like a student of class II appearing for B.Sc.."
Shivade argued that bursting of a tyre caused the SUV to veer off the road, noting that according to a survey, 35 per cent of road accidents are caused by tyre burst.
The actor was not present in the court today, though his sister Alvira attended the proceedings. The arguments would continue tomorrow
