The court not only acquitted the actor from serious charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder it also found him not guilty of leaving the accident spot without providing aid to the victims.R.The acquittal of actor Salman Khan has brought embarrassment for the police department. Joshi, who passed the judgment on the 2002 hit-and-run case, also lambasted the police for their shoddy investigation.)The judge also held that the evidence of Patil was not marshaled properly and evidence to establish biological chain regarding alcohol consumption is not appreciated as per the mandate of law.According to the prosecution, Salman fled the spot after his SUV ran over people sleeping on footpath in suburban Bandra, killing one person and injuring four.

The judge also observed, "It can be said without giving all the details that the trial court had erred in accepting the bills (of the hotel visited by Salman before the mishap) which were recovered without there being any panchnama and the bills altogether saddled with fabrication."Though this court has held that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant/accused (Salman) was driving the vehicle during the incident, still it is a factual position that he was present in the vehicle and this position cannot be negated.The judge observed that under section 134, not only the driver but every person in charge of a vehicle which is involved in an accident is duty-bound to give medical assistance to the victims.". The investigation was so conducted as to loosen the prosecution’s case, the judge said. In fact, Justice A.However the judge held that a mob had gathered after the accident and the situation led the actor to leave the place.

According to high court Ravindra Patil’s (eye-witness and police bodyguard of Salman at the relevant time) statement, recorded by a magistrate earlier, was inadmissible as evidence before the sessions court (as he died in 2007 and before the case was committed to sessions court.The court observed that though the investigation might be impartial, it was conducted in a careless and faulty manner with scant regard to the established procedure laid down in law, particularly the procedure required for establishing a chain of evidence when the case is based on biological evidence.

The judge said, China air compressor motors Factory "Even this charge under section 134 of Motor Vehicles Act cannot be attracted. As such, the import of section 134 of Motor Vehicles Act is required to be construed," the court said. According to the judge, "Considering this argument (that people could have harmed the actor at accident spot) and the factual position that the circumstances were such that in order to escape from the fury of mob and these circumstances were beyond the control of the appellant, no such appropriate steps were taken to secure the medical aid to the injured persons