A month after the Bombay high court acquitted Salman Khan of all charges in a 13-year-old fatal mishap and questioned the “glaring anomalies” in the evidence, the Mumbai police has decided to take action to avoid similar embarrassment.
Taking heed of the lapses, the Additional Commissioner of Police (crime) KMM Prasanna has issued a circular, advising its men to follow legal procedures while probing accident cases to avoid situations like the Salman Khan case.
According to a report in the mid-day newspaper, Prasanna has asked all police officers to learn from investigating officer’s mistakes and ensure that such goof-ups do not occur again.
Following are the 16 points mentioned in the circular according to the newspaper:
Bills were collected from Rain Bar in Santacruz, where the prosecution had alleged that Salman Khan drank liquor, without due certification under Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act.
Bills of JW Marriott Hotel and parking tag were seized by the police but not shown in the panchanama.
There are handwritten endorsements on the computer extracts in the bills of Rain Bar, but no evidence was collected as to who took the said endorsements, and how.
The actor was available from September 28 morning for a medical test at the Bandra police station, but he was only taken to JJ Hospital in the afternoon.
While the blood sample of the deceased, Narula, was taken at Bhabha Hospital, why was the actor’s blood sample collected at JJ Hospital? No explanation was given.
Though the blood samples had come on September 28, 2002, to the Bandra police station from JJ Hospital, they were sent to the Forensic Laboratory in Kalina only on September 30, 2002. Till then, they were kept in the police station where, the court had said, they might have been either tampered with or not stored properly.
A chain of custody of blood samples was not properly established.
Statement of the constable who brought the blood samples of the accused from hospital to police station was not recorded and he was not examined.
Important anomaly - 6 ml of blood extracted from actor's body in two containers, but FDL received only 4 ml of blood.
Receiving clerk of FSL not examined.
The investigating officer did not verify the medical papers while collecting them. Blood collection reports shows many discrepancies and defects, which were admitted.
No charge under Section 66 (i) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act was framed.
In two places, the FIR was altered, but no explanation was given.
Under Section 161, statements were not recorded of witness. Nobody says Salman was driving the vehicle.
The defence had said the tyre had burst, which was the reason of the crash but the tyre was not sent to the forensic laboratory.
Actor Kamal Khan was not summoned to the trial when his address was available with cops though he could have been a great witness for the police.