By  
on  

Salman Khan blackbuck poaching case: Rajasthan court hears plea against actor's conviction

A district court on Tuesday, July 17, heard a plea by Bollywood superstar Salman Khan against his conviction by a trial court in the 1998 Kankani blackbuck poaching case and fixed August 3 and 4 for further hearing.

The hearing on Salman's appeal continued for around three hours in pre- and post-lunch hours in the court of District and Sessions Judge Chandra Kumar Sonagara.

Salman Khan was convicted for shooting and killing two blackbucks in Kankani village near Jodhpur on the night of October 1, 1998, during the shooting of the film Hum Saath Saath Hain.

Recommended Read: Dus Ka Dum: Salman Khan tapes an episode with Himesh Reshammiya and Guru Randhawa

His co-stars and co-accused, Saif Ali Khan, Tabu, Neelam and Sonali Bendre, who had accompanied the actor that night, were however acquitted by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur Rural.

Defending his client in the sessions court, defense lawyer Mahesh Bora cited two similar cases of Chinkara poaching wherein Salman Khan was acquitted by the Rajasthan High Court.

He contended that these two cases had the similar evidence, documents, and similar prosecution stories, adding that way Salman Khan should be held guilty in this instant case.

During the last hearing, defense counsel Hastimal Saraswat had submitted an application in the district court, arguing that the Kankani blackbuck poaching case and the Arms Act case registered thereof should be heard together since both were similar in nature and had common witnesses.

The court had fixed July 17 for hearing in both the cases.

Recommended read: Salman Khan’s Arms Act, Poaching case hearing on July 17

However, as per the court process, the Arms Act case hearing will start only after poaching case hearing ends, said informed sources.

Salman Khan was granted bail in the poaching case on April 7, after spending two nights in the Jodhpur Central Jail. He was sentenced to five years in jail on April 5 by the CJM court in the case.

Author

Recommended