The trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Jodhpur was over the alleged violation of the Arms Act, 1959 by Salman Khan. It was alleged that Salman had in his possession unlicensed firearms (or at least those which whose licenses had expired and had not been renewed) and that he had used such firearms (to kill the blackbuck).
These are two separate offences, which the police sought to punish him under; Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act respectively. The latter carries a sentence of between three to seven years.
Also Read: Jodhpur Court Acquits Actor Salman Khan in Arms Act Case
Problem with the Criminal Justice System
- Glaring loopholes exposed in the probe by the Rajasthan
Police in Salman Khan’s case as most eye witnesses’ account is based on
hearsay.
- Prosecution didn’t do its homework, as it framed the
wrong charges under the Arms Act 1959.
- Charge for possession of a firearm whose license had expired
was neither made nor put forth by the appropriate officer.
- Unfair to link the acquittal with the actors’ influence as
the conviction rate for serious crimes is abysmally low in India.
- Shoddy investigation and poor strategy by prosecution, as is
evident in Salman’s case, have become the norm rather than the exception.
Lack of Evidence
Eighteen years after the alleged event, we finally have an order of the trial court acquitting him of all the charges against him. After a detailed and thorough examination of the evidence presented before him, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was unpersuaded that the prosecution case was made out, finding that the whole prosecution had been launched mindlessly and without examining the proper material available on record.
The conclusion this time was somewhat expected in light of the earlier judgement of the Rajasthan High Court acquitting him over charges of having killed the blackbuck in 1998. Although the Rajasthan Government has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgement of the High Court, the findings still stand and they have been quoted and followed by the trial court in this case too.
The key findings which seem to have mattered relate to the failure to show that Salman Khan had actually shot the blackbuck or even that the blackbuck had died from bullet wounds.
Also Read: Salman Khan Arms Act: Timeline of Events Leading to His Acquittal
Was the Eyewitness’ Account Reliable?
The investigation of the crime by the Rajasthan Police has once again exposed to be utterly slipshod, with none of the procedural requirements of law being followed properly when it came to the manner of seizing the guns, or conducting the searches properly. The relevant eyewitnesses, the ones who gave the information to the police and are named in the FIR, were not presented before the court to produce evidence.
Most of the eyewitnesses turned out to be those who had only second-hand or hearsay information about the offence. There is an air of casualness as key documents are not produced, eyewitnesses not examined, and even the evidence given is largely hearsay and not corroborated.
Wrong Charges in the Arms’ Case
In addition, even when it came to accusing him of being in possession of an unlicensed gun, the prosecution framed the wrong charges against Salman.
Under the Arms Act, having an unlicensed firearm is a different offence from having a firearm whose license has expired. In the latter case, there’s an obligation to deposit it in the nearest police station, and failure to do so can result in prosecution. Not only was this charge not made, even if it was applicable, it was not laid by the appropriate officer under the Arms Act.
It’s ‘Not’ the Money Factor
The Court’s reasoning is by and large unobjectionable. It’s not the trial court’s job to make up the deficiencies in the prosecution’s case by being fast and loose with the law and the evidence before it. The pattern, though, should worry us.
It’s easy to link high-profile accused’s routine escapes from the law to simply the money and influence factor. That would be a mistake. According to the NCRB’s report on Crime in India in 2015, the conviction rate for serious crimes such as rape and murder is just 26.7 percent even though chargesheets are filed in nearly 83.6 percent of such cases.
Equally, the objective of the criminal justice system is also not to have maximum possible convictions, nor to ensure that every case ends in a conviction.
Also Read: Tracing Salman Khan’s Involvement in the Blackbuck Case
Shoddy Investigation, Poor Strategy by Prosecution
What separates a modern, civilised criminal justice system from mob justice is the adherence to procedure and the rules of evidence. That crimes will be investigated properly, the accused given every chance to defend herself, and proper procedure followed throughout. It’s one thing to put in place laws and institutions to do this, completely another to ensure that the laws are followed and the institutions function as intended.
What each of Salman Khan’s cases show is that the laws are not being followed as they’re meant to be, nor are the institutions functioning as intended. While shoddy investigation and poor strategy by prosecution comes to the fore in a prominent case like this, it is far more the norm than the exception in the criminal justice system.
Where Salman Khan’s influence and resources give him an advantage are in being able to avoid the worst fallout of the system; even if he doesn’t use these to rig it in his favour.
Symptom of a Deeper Malaise
As we saw with the appeal after conviction, Salman Khan obtained bail almost instantly, and even got the Rajasthan High Court to suspend his conviction. Compare this to the plight of the ordinary undertrial who, despite being likely to be acquitted, still suffers imprisonment for not having the resources to get bail. To say nothing of Muslim men who are accused of terror offences and spend years in jail before being found innocent.
Outraging against Salman Khan’s acquittal is the easy thing to do. It shouldn’t be treated as an aberration, but as yet another symptom of a deeper and much more dangerous malaise: the flawed, dysfunctional criminal justice system.
(Alok Prasanna Kumar is an advocate based in Bengaluru and can be reached @alokpi. Views expressed here are purely personal and do not reflect the views of any organisation.)
Also Read: No One Killed Nurullah: Sigh! Go Get A Price Tag For Every Crime
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)