Black Buck case

[wannabe]

Correction:  The actual hearing date is June 19, not May 19, as is being reported on Zee TV News.  (If you remember, this was also the date set for the next hearing when Salman was granted bail for the second conviction in Jodhpur.)  However, I am letting the wrong headline and story stand here, because that is what was reported by the print media, who were misled by a wrong date given by the wire service, PTI.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salman, Saif, Tabu to appear in Jodhpur court on May 19

JODHPUR, MAY 8 (PTI)
A court here today ordered the personal appearance on May 19 of film stars Salman Khan, Saif Ali Khan, Neelam, Tabu and Sonali Bendre in the black buck poaching case.

While ordering the personal appearance of the film stars, the District Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, has directed to reframe the charges against them in connection with the poaching of two endangered black bucks in Kanakani village in 1998.

Recently, the Additional District and Session Judge No.3 has ordered the dropping of some charges framed by the lower court against these film stars while partially allowing the revision petitions filed on behalf of Salman and others.

Counsels for Salman and other celebrities urged the court to fix the date of reframing the charges after May 14, since Salman is touring abroad these days.

They told the court that appeal filed by Salman against his conviction in two different poaching cases is pending in the court and on May 19 he will be present in the court of District and Sessions Judge for the hearing and this date will be convenient for him and others.

After hearing the arguments, District Judicial Magistrate Dalpat Singh Rajpurohit fixed May 19 as the date for reframing the charges and ordered the personal appearance of Salman, Saif, Tabbu, Neelam and Sonali on that day.

The Magistrate has framed the charges against Salman and others on February 27 for the poaching of the black bucks on the intervening night of October 1 and 2, 1998 at Kankani village in Jodhpur.

The film stars challenged the order in the Sessions Court and it has transferred the case to Additional District Judge 3. On May 4 Additional District Judge 3 allowed the appeals filed by the film stars, while ordering dropping of some sections against them. Now, the lower court will reframe the charges under section 51 and 52 of Wild Life Protection Act before starting the trial.


http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=383149

[wannabe]

Part of an interview where Salman talks about the poaching case (the full interview is in the Salman discussion thread):

Salman: I will never be able to forgive

P Rajendran in New York | May 17, 2006 19:02 IST

But when alone, he still has to consider what lies ahead, particularly a case from 1998 in which he allegedly shot protected blackbuck in Jaipur, Rajasthan, and one, in 2002, in which he is accused of having run over and killed a pavement dweller in Mumbai.

He is getting an unfair deal from both the police and the media, he says, asserting that though he is resentful of the people who put him into this position, it is the stress it causes the family that upsets him the most.

"What a lot of trouble they've gone through because of me," he says. "Even if I'm in jail and they know about it -- I may be okay there -- but what may be going on in their minds, thinking about what I'm going through..." he trails off.

But he still speaks resentfully of the blackbuck case, for which he spent three days of a five-year term in jail before getting out on bail after his mother was hospitalised.

"They took her to hospital. She had a small heart attack. They didn't tell me about it in jail. It is because of what happened to her... The person who did that to me, I will never be able to forgive (him)," says Salman.

The police found two dead blackbuck at the time. "The first post mortem said the first animal died of overeating; the other jumped over a wall and was eaten by a dog," says Salman. The second post mortem, conducted after 10 days, concluded the animals could have died of gunshots.

"1972 till now, only one conviction -- mine," says Salman.

It is not the only case but it is certainly the harshest sentence for such an offence, legal experts in India such as Mahesh Jethmalani have agreed.

"My fans have stood outside the jail. They won't let it go. I have respect for the fans. Kids, mothers, grandmothers, People giving out food, water." He says he thought the crowds would ebb after a few days but it only grew.

"The police told me they had never seen anything like this. The reason I've not taken a stand is that these people (his accusers) have families. Harish Dulari (the driver who provided the clinching testimony) makes about Rs 750 a month."

So he'd actually chance going to jail to save the lives of those who put him in?

"That's the way I've been brought up, dude," he responds.

http://us.rediff.com/movies/2006/may/17salman.htm?q=tp&file=.htm

[wannabe]

Excerpt dealing with the poaching case:

Salman Maintains Innocence in Shooting, Hit-and-Run Cases

By LISA TSERING
India-West Staff Reporter

In April, Khan was sentenced to five years in prison for shooting an endangered deer in Rajasthan in 1998. In February, another court sentenced Khan to a year in prison on a separate charge of poaching deer and buck. He has appealed that sentence.

Khan has faced several separate charges of poaching and illegal possession of weapons stemming from the incident, when he, Saif Ali Khan, Tabu and other actors allegedly drove into the Thar desert to shoot deer while on a break from filming.

Khan has denied the charge, and said he's baffled at the guilty verdict.

"Maybe it's our fault. Maybe our legal team wasn't efficient enough," he told India-West.

"There's also the question of it being politically motivated, and no one ever wants to talk about that. There are one too many hunting cases which never come up. Since 1972 to 2006 there has been one verdict, and that's mine."

"I didn't do it," he said emphatically.

According to Khan, the deer died of natural causes. "That's the beauty of the whole thing," he said bitterly. "There were two animals that were found on Oct. 1. I was arrested Oct. 9. The vet said that one animal died from overeating, and the other animal died after jumping over a wall, breaking its leg, and then being eaten by a dog. After 12 days they dug up the animals again, and at that time said, 'Probably a gunshot.'"

But possessing a gun there would place Khan in violation of a weapons act, so he asserted, "My weapons were in Bombay city and I have a license for them."

"I don't hunt at all," he told India-West. "We were driving past one evening after our movie shooting, and were looking at some deer. This was in broad daylight.

I said this right in the beginning, but no one wanted to print it. We took it very lightly, thinking nothing was going to come of it. We were wrong about that."

Khan also added that the blackbuck deer wasn't as rare and endangered as commonly believed. "The birthrate of a blackbuck antelope and a goat is the same. How many billion goats have been killed every single day? Why are they not going extinct?"


http://www.indiawest.com/view.php?subaction=showfull&id=1148510948&archive=&start_from=&ucat=7

The full article and link to the video of the press conference is given in the Salman Khan discussion thread.

[James]

According to Khan, the deer died of natural causes. "That's the beauty of the whole thing," he said bitterly. "There were two animals that were found on Oct. 1. I was arrested Oct. 9. The vet said that one animal died from overeating, and the other animal died after jumping over a wall, breaking its leg, and then being eaten by a dog. After 12 days they dug up the animals again, and at that time said, 'Probably a gunshot.'"

Thanks for posting the article, Wannabe.  I have to say that the above quote is news to me.  Has this been mentioned before in the press at all?  I don't remember it.  I do think his sentence is politically motivated because the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime.

[Anamika]

According to Khan, the deer died of natural causes. "That's the beauty of the whole thing," he said bitterly. "There were two animals that were found on Oct. 1. I was arrested Oct. 9. The vet said that one animal died from overeating, and the other animal died after jumping over a wall, breaking its leg, and then being eaten by a dog. After 12 days they dug up the animals again, and at that time said, 'Probably a gunshot.'"

Thanks for posting the article, Wannabe.  I have to say that the above quote is news to me.  Has this been mentioned before in the press at all?  I don't remember it.  I do think his sentence is politically motivated because the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime.

Although I agree with that thought (that his sentence is poliltically motivated) I can't believe what he said. He must have been mis-informed there. Wild animals don't die from overeating, that's rubbish - otherwise all antelopes would drop dead when it rained after a long draught, 'coz then the grass grows very fast and they don't do anything but eat for weeks, as long as the bounty lasts...

IMO Salman also didn't do his case a favour with saying that blackbucks aren't that rare. Of course once they were very common, but then they have been hunted to extinction in Pakistan and they are endangered in India; their numbers are now only a small percentage of what they once were.
The comparison to goats is strange and unfair, because goats are being bred and fed and protected from predators by humans, whereas blackbuck habitat is taken away from them, they have to survive in a desert with very little food, and they are being hunted by both humans and predators (jackals, hyaena, feral dogs, wolves etc.), which often kill their young. So even if their birthrate is roughly the same (one kid per female per year, sometimes two), their survival rate is not.

[wannabe]

According to Khan, the deer died of natural causes. "That's the beauty of the whole thing," he said bitterly. "There were two animals that were found on Oct. 1. I was arrested Oct. 9. The vet said that one animal died from overeating, and the other animal died after jumping over a wall, breaking its leg, and then being eaten by a dog. After 12 days they dug up the animals again, and at that time said, 'Probably a gunshot.'"

Thanks for posting the article, Wannabe.  I have to say that the above quote is news to me.  Has this been mentioned before in the press at all?  I don't remember it.  I do think his sentence is politically motivated because the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime.

I have read before in articles that there are quite a few gaps in the prosecution case.  Now I can't post links to all these things without doing a lot of research (which I don't have time for right now), but if you're willing to trust my memory, here's the gist as I have compiled  it from various sources over the last year or so.

1.  There are three charges of poaching.  In the first charge (for which Salman was convicted and sentenced to one year's imprisonment), and the second charge (for which he was convicted and sentenced to five years' imprisonment), I believe no bodies of animals were recovered, though the police say there were bloodstains in his car and in a sink in his hotel, which were found to correspond to the animals' blood type.  Now I'm sorry, but I can't remember which blood stains go with which poaching case.  That is, in one case there were supposed to be bloodstains in the car, and in the other one, blood stains were supposed to be in the sink.  The defense counterargument is that when the jeep was first seized by police, there are statements taken by witnesses to the seizure that say there were no bloodstains anywhere in the car.  But after the jeep was kept in police custody for several days, they then found bloodstains.  Similarly, in the other case, the police initially said they found some bloodstains on the ground (I take it not in a location which would irrefutably link them to Salman), and again, after a time, the police report was amended to say that they found blood stains in the sink of Salman's room.

2.  In the second case (with the five year sentence), I believe that they did not find any dead animals at all, but only some pieces of meat and a portion of the skin of one or two animals lying around on the ground in various locations.  That is, even the parts of the animals that were found weren't all in one place, but scattered over a wide area.  There was thus no evidence possible about how they came to die.  In fact, I think in one of the articles posted in this thread earlier about the second conviction, it is pointed out that Salman was actually acquitted of the charge of using a gun.  So how is supposed to have killed the animal?

3. The post mortem results that Salman is referring to in his interview are for the third case, the one that is upcoming in which the other actors are also charged.  This is the only case for which the animal bodies were recovered and an actual post mortem performed.  I did read in another place earlier that the first PM reports, done by the government veterenarians, concluded that there was nothing to show what caused their deaths, and that later a second PM was performed by different vets, that said that the animals deaths could have been caused by gun shot wounds (even that doesn't sound very definitive, does it?)

4.  Another confusing aspect of this case is the gun that Salman is supposed to have used.  Some articles refer to it as a hunting rifle, and others to an air gun.  Can an animal of the size of these deer be killed by an air gun?  I know nothing about guns, but that seems unlikely to me.   I think there is also some inconsistency between the kind of gun that the police claim was used to kill the animals, and the kind that Salman actually has a license for (meaning, it's hard to link it to him if he doesn't even own a gun like that).

When I first read about these cases about three or four years ago, I just read brief accounts like, Salman killed these deer while hunting, and they found evidence that confirmed it.  One bit I remember reading was that they had done forensic tests on the bullet recovered from the dead animal, and it matched Salman's gun/rifle.  Well, that seemed pretty conclusive to me, an open and shut case.  But once the trials got seriously underway, and more details about the evidence were published, I kept finding more and more inconsistencies.  Now I really wonder if any animals were even killed (as opposed to merely dying on their own.)  Irrespective of the  person involved, it strikes me as a monstrous miscarriage of justice, because the prosecution evidence, as presented in court, does not even form a logical chain, let alone conclusively implicating anyone.

(A bit of grim humor.  I think basically the prosecution witnesses were coached to make as damning a statement as possible against Salman for their portion of the testimony, but nobody actually put all these statements together to see if they would make sense.  Thus in one of the cases, one witness testifies that Salman was driving the jeep, thus linking him to the place.  Another witness later testifies that when the deer appeared, Salman shot it while standing on the front seat of the jeep and aiming the gun with both his hands, thus conclusively proving that he killed it.  Only, when you put both the statements together, what you have is a picture  of Salman driving the jeep while simultaneously standing on the front seat and taking aim with both hands. Um, how's that again?)

The saddest part to my mind is that, if anyone wanted to publicize the cause of saving this species, they have botched the job so badly that probably in the end, no one will take the cause of saving endangered species seriously at all.

Ele, as soon as I read that bit about the birth rate of the black bucks, I knew it would get your goat.    (Sorry.)  He's no authority on wildlife, as he's proving by that statement, but it sounds like the kind of thing someone told him would make an impact.  I didn't know about the overeating part, but I think you are right, he is just repeating what someone told him, and is probably misinformed. 

[mrs. k]

LOL at the "driving the jeep while simultaneously standing on the front seat and taking aim with both hands"  - that could happen in a BW film, for sure!!! 

According to Khan, the deer died of natural causes. "That's the beauty of the whole thing," he said bitterly. "There were two animals that were found on Oct. 1. I was arrested Oct. 9. The vet said that one animal died from overeating, and the other animal died after jumping over a wall, breaking its leg, and then being eaten by a dog. After 12 days they dug up the animals again, and at that time said, 'Probably a gunshot.'"

Thanks for posting the article, Wannabe.  I have to say that the above quote is news to me.  Has this been mentioned before in the press at all?  I don't remember it.  I do think his sentence is politically motivated because the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime.

Although I agree with that thought (that his sentence is poliltically motivated) I can't believe what he said. He must have been mis-informed there. Wild animals don't die from overeating, that's rubbish - otherwise all antelopes would drop dead when it rained after a long draught, 'coz then the grass grows very fast and they don't do anything but eat for weeks, as long as the bounty lasts...

IMO Salman also didn't do his case a favour with saying that blackbucks aren't that rare. Of course once they were very common, but then they have been hunted to extinction in Pakistan and they are endangered in India; their numbers are now only a small percentage of what they once were.
The comparison to goats is strange and unfair, because goats are being bred and fed and protected from predators by humans, whereas blackbuck habitat is taken away from them, they have to survive in a desert with very little food, and they are being hunted by both humans and predators (jackals, hyaena, feral dogs, wolves etc.), which often kill their young. So even if their birthrate is roughly the same (one kid per female per year, sometimes two), their survival rate is not.

I watched that press conference snippet and it seems like what he was bringing up with that comparison is that despite having a birth rate being the same as for goats,  black bucks are endangered -  and what has contributed to their rarity is poaching which must have gone on for a while - so then why is he the first person to be convicted of the crime?

It does seem like his legal team didn't take this case very seriously in the beginning and that probably hurt him.  But I think in general  he should maybe keep his mouth shut about his cases.  The more he says, the more trouble he could get himself into!   

[wannabe]

I watched that press conference snippet and it seems like what he was bringing up with that comparison is that despite having a birth rate being the same as for goats,  black bucks are endangered -  and what has contributed to their rarity is poaching which must have gone on for a while - so then why is he the first person to be convicted of the crime?

It does seem like his legal team didn't take this case very seriously in the beginning and that probably hurt him.  But I think in general  he should maybe keep his mouth shut about his cases.  The more he says, the more trouble he could get himself into!   

Your're right, Mrs. k, I, too, watched the press conference, and I think that was the point he was making -- that obviously the black bucks have become endangered because of rampant hunting, so why are all the other hunters allowed to go free?

I don't know if  it was his lawyer or himself that didn't take the case seriously to begin with.  I can imagine Salman thinking, "I didn't kill anything, so what do I have to be afraid of?" and his lawyer thinking (or saying), "Don't worry, in all the years this law has been on the books, nobody's ever been convicted under it, although everybody knows that hunting goes on all the time."  Both understandable positions, until they blew up in their faces.

Ele, I don't know if this makes any difference, but apparently what the PM report said was that the animal died of overeating and then falling on its stomach, so it wasn't just dying of overeating. That's still just a parphrase; I haven't seen any published version of the report to know how the findings were exactly stated.

[wannabe]

This article was scanned in by someone at another forum.  It is from the June issue of Stardust. With that caveat, it nevertheless raises interesting questions, the most interesting one to my mind being, what prompted them to publish it now?  Obviously the upcoming hearing on June 19, where all the actors are to be charged, but I mean, why raise such serious and fundamental doubts now?  Is it because, given the aftermath of the previous case and verdict, they have realized how serious a verdict against Salman could be for him?  Food for thought, in any case.

I tried to post the actual images here, but because of the forum's size restrictions, they became unreadable.  So I am giving the links where you can read them.  The article's title is "Is Salman the Scapegoat for Another's Crime?"

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5822/untitled12bp.jpg

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/6311/untitled23ac.jpg

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7286/untitled36tl.jpg

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8405/untitled40qp.jpg

[wannabe]

Ex-ACP admits giving arms permit to Salman

PTI
Saturday, June 17, 2006 21:03 IST

JODHPUR: A former senior police officer of Mumbai on Saturday admitted before a local court, trying Salman Khan in an Arms Act case, to having issued the Bollywood actor a weapon carrying permit in 1998 despite his licence having expired.

Retired Assistant Commissioner of Police Vijay Narain Pundit told the court of District Magistrate D S Rajpurohit that he committed a mistake by issuing the permit to Salman for carrying arms to Jodhpur during the shooting of 'Hum Saath Saath Hain', after the licence expiration date of September 22, 1998.

He informed the court that he was unaware of the expiry date of the license given to the actor. Normally, these licences are renewed on the day of its expiry or before, he said.

Pundit was the 15th prosecution witness in the case to appear before the court. A case was registered against Salman under the Indian Arms Act on October 11, 1998, in Mathania police station for carrying of a firearm in the state.

Delhi Police Superintendent of Police Ashok Patni, who as Jodhpur Additional SP investigated the case against Salman, also appeared before the court, but his statements could not be recorded completely.

The court deferred the hearing till Monday. The actor was convicted by a court in February and April this year in two cases of chinkara and blackbuck poaching in the district in September-October 1998 during the shooting of 'Hum Saath Saath Hain'.

Two more cases pertaining to hunting of endangered deer in Kankani village are pending against him.


http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1036126

[wannabe]

 Salman appeals to be heard on Monday

PTI
Sunday, June 18, 2006 20:03 IST

JODHPUR: The district court will on Monday hear the appeals of Bollywood star Salman Khan against the two prison sentences on him for killing endangered chinkara and black bucks here in 1998.
Salman along with actor Saif Ali Khan and actresses Tabu, Sonali Bendre and Neelam will also appear before a judicial magistrate for a hearing regarding reframing of charges in another poaching case.


Saif, Tabu, Sonali and Neelam reached here in the afternoon and Salman was to arrive late at night.

Salman is due to appear in the district and sessions court for pending appeals against the prison sentences by Chief Judicial Magistrate B K Jain earlier this year.

On February 17, the judge had sentenced the actor to a year in jail for killing a chinkara (a species of gazelle) in Bhavad village of the district in September 1998.

He was given a five-year sentence on April 10 for killing a rare black buck in Ghoda farms, also in the district.

A judicial magistrate's court will on Monday also reframe charges against the filmstars in a case pertaining to the hunting of black buck in Kankani village of the district.

It framed the charges but was directed by an additional district and sessions judge to reframe them after dropping some when the actors filed a revision petition which was accepted on May 4.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1036296



Jodhpur court frames charges against Salman
-------------------------------------------


Rajan Mahan

Monday, June 19, 2006 (Jodhpur):


After eight years, a Jodhpur court has pronounced charges against five film stars for the hunting of black bucks during a film shooting in 1998.

Black bucks are a protected species under the Wildlife Protection Act.

The court charged Salman Khan, the main accused under Section 51 of the Act for hunting a protected species.

All other stars involved- Saif, Sonali Bendre, Neelam and Tabu have been charged for abetment not under the Indian Penal Code but the less stringent Wildlife Protection Act.

This paves the way for the formal trial to begin on July 3. If found guilty the stars could face a penalty of one-six years in prison and a fine of up to Rs 25,000.


http://www.ndtv.com/topstories/showtopstory.asp?category=National&slug=Court+frames+charges+against+Salman&id=19652

[James]

I saw this on the BBC website and found it interesting because it gave a few specific details- how much Salman was fined, the amount of his bail, and the name of the crown/prosecuting attorney.  I'm not a fluent Hindi speaker but I believe the following is correct.  Hopefully some fluent Hindi speaker can confirm and/or finesse the translation.

~James.


सलमान ख़ान नई मुसीबत में फंसे

Salman Khan Caught up in New Misfortune
26th June, 2006.

फ़िल्म स्टार सलमान ख़ान की मुसीबतों का अंत होता नज़र नहीं आ रहा है. अब वो एक और परेशानी में फंस गए लगते हैं.
Film star Salman Khan kii museebato.n ka ant hota nazar nahiin aa rahaa hai.  Ab vo ek aur pareshani mei.n pha.ns gaye lagte hain.

The end of film star Salman Khan's troubles is not in sight.  It seems he is now caught up in more trouble.

अभियोग पक्ष ने राजस्थान के जोधपुर की एक अदालत को सूचित किया है कि सलमान ख़ान ने अदालत को अपने हथियार लाइसेंस के संबंध में गुमराह किया. अदालत ने इस मामले में सलमान ख़ान को नोटिस जारी कर दिया है.
Abhiyog Paksh ne Rajasthan ke Jodhpur ki ek adaalat ko suuchit kiyaa hai ki Salman Khan ne adaalat ko apane hathiyar license ke sambandh mei.n gumraah kiyaa.  Adaalat ne is mamle mei.n Salman Khan ko notice jaarii kar diyaa hai.

Abhiyog Paksha pointed out to a court in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, that Salman Khan misled the court in connection with his weapon's license.  The court put Salman Khan on notice on the issue. 

ग़ौरतलब है कि हाल ही में जोधपुर की एक अदालत ने फ़िल्म अभिनेता सलमान ख़ान के ख़िलाफ़ दो चिंकारा के शिकार के मामले में आरोप तय कर दिए थे.
gaurtalab hai ki haal hii mei.n Jodhpur ki ek adaalat ne film abhinetaa Salman Khan ke khilaaf do chinkara ke shikaar ke mamle mein aarop tay kar diye the.

It's noteworthy that recently in Jodhpur a court decided a case against film actor Salman Khan in the matter of the hunting of two chinkaras.

उन पर 1998 में जोधपुर में चिंकारा को मारने का आरोप है. सलमान ख़ान इन आरोपों का खंडन करते आए हैं.
Un par 1998 mei.n Jodhpur mei.n chinkara ko marne ka aarop hai.  Salman Khan in aaropo.n ka kha.nDan karte aae hai.n

It is alleged that he killed (two) chinkaras in Jodhpur in 1998.  Salman Khan came to disprove the allegation.

अभियोग पक्ष का कहना है कि सलमान ख़ान का हथियार का लाइसेंस मुंबई पुलिस के पास है जबकि फ़िल्म अभिनेता ने अदालत को ग़लत जानकारी दी कि यह खो गया है.
Abhiyog Paksh ka kehna hai ki Salman Khan ka hathiyar ka license Mumbai police ke paas hai jabki film abhineta ne adalaat ko galat jaankaarii dii ki yeh kho gayaa hai.

Abhiyog Paksha stated that Salman Khan's weapon's license was in the possession of the Mumbai police when the film actor wrongfully informed the court that it was lost.

सरकारी वकील एनके संखला ने अदालत से अनुरोध किया कि वह सलमान के ख़िलाफ़ कार्रवाई करे. एनके संखला ने कहा,'' अदालत को गुमराह करना गंभीर मामला है.''
Sarkaarii vakeel Enke Sankhlaa ne adaalat se anurodh kiyaa ki vo Salmaan ke khilaaf karrvaaii kare.  Enke Sankhlaa ne kahaa, "adaalat ko gumraah karnaa gambheer maamlaa hai".

The crown (prosecuting) attorney, Enke Sankhlaa, appealed to the court that it take action against Salman.  Enke Sankhlaa said, "To mislead the court is a serious matter".

अदालत ने उनसे इस संबंध में 10 जुलाई से पहले जवाब देने को कहा है
Adaalat ne unse is sambandh mei.n 10 July se pehle javaab dene ko kahaa hai.

The court told him (Salman) to reply in relation to this before 10th July.

इसके पहले राजस्थान में ही शिकार के एक अन्य मामले में सलमान ख़ान को अप्रैल में दोषी पाया गया था और पाँच साल जेल और 25 हज़ार रुपए के जुर्माने की सज़ा सुनाई गई थी.
Iske pehle Rajasthan mei.n hii shikaar ke ek anya maamle mei.n Salman Khan ko April mei.n doshii paayaa gayaa thaa aur paanch saal jail aur 25 hazaar rupaye jurmaane ki sazaa sunaaii gaii thii.

Salman Khan was found guilty in April before this in Rajasthan in another hunting case and sentenced to five years in jail and fined 25,000 Rs.

इसके बाद उन्हें दो लाख रुपए के निजी मुचलके और 25 हज़ार रुपए का जुर्माना देने पर जमानत पर रिहा कर दिया गया था.
iske baad unhe.n do lakh rupaye ke nijii muchalke aur 25 hazaar rupaye kaa jurmaana dene par jamaanat par rihaa kar diya gayaa thaa.

After this he was released on bail after paying a fine of 25,000 Rs and on a personal bond for 200,000 Rs.

[wannabe]

Unfotunately, James, my browser doesn't support Devanagari script, but I assume that the English parts are your translations of the article.  There doesn't seem to be anything new here.  It is mostly a rehashing of the cases so far.  Maybe the only new item (on Bollywhat, anyway) is the show cause notice that was issued about his gun license.  This was reported some weeks ago, but I didn't bother to post it here because (a) it seemed to be more of a bureaucratic mixup than anything else; and (b) I didn't think anyone here was really interested.  If you want, I can look up the articles and post one here.

It is clear that now the prosecutors are pretty much on a witch hunt, and various NGO's want to get in the limelight by accusing him.  The Gujarat government recently decided to reopen a past case (from eight years ago) where he and Aishwarya had previously been suspected of poaching, and cleared after investigation.  However, another wildlife group pressured the government into reopening the case now.  Well, since the Gujarat government has also decided to reexamine a case against Aamir for harm caused to chinkaras during the filming of Lagaan, (again at the behest of some animal group?), I think it fair to conclude that either the animal rights groups, or the state government, or both, are just out to gain some publicity by going after someone well-known.   

[James]

Unfotunately, James, my browser doesn't support Devanagari script, but I assume that the English parts are your translations of the article.

Whoops.  No problem, I've added transliteration for you.    I was going to do that at the time I put it up but it was so late when I did it that I was in a rush to get to bed!    Yes, the translation is mine, and now you can compare to the hindi. 

There doesn't seem to be anything new here.  It is mostly a rehashing of the cases so far.  Maybe the only new item (on Bollywhat, anyway) is the show cause notice that was issued about his gun license.  This was reported some weeks ago, but I didn't bother to post it here because (a) it seemed to be more of a bureaucratic mixup than anything else; and (b) I didn't think anyone here was really interested.  If you want, I can look up the articles and post one here.

I suppose it's more my short memory than anything else that caused me to think this had new information.  I don't recall seeing the amount he paid in bail or the fine he received before, but when I posted here I saw that the information was indeed here.  But I'd already translated it and posted it and I wasn't taking it back.     I do think it was interesting to read nonetheless because you get a feel for the court proceedings, how the crown attorney is conducting himself, and how ridiculous it all seems...

It is clear that now the prosecutors are pretty much on a witch hunt, and various NGO's want to get in the limelight by accusing him.  The Gujarat government recently decided to reopen a past case (from eight years ago) where he and Aishwarya had previously been suspected of poaching, and cleared after investigation.  However, another wildlife group pressured the government into reopening the case now.  Well, since the Gujarat government has also decided to reexamine a case against Aamir for harm caused to chinkaras during the filming of Lagaan, (again at the behest of some animal group?), I think it fair to conclude that either the animal rights groups, or the state government, or both, are just out to gain some publicity by going after someone well-known.   

I agree that it does seem like a witch hunt.  It strikes me that the crown attorney is being disingenous by trying to bring the court down on Salman because of the mix-up over his license.  All I can gather from that is that the crown attorney is trying to insinuate that perhaps Salman would be trying to avoid having the gun they found at the site matched up to the gun he owns via use of his license?  But presumably they'd be able to check if there are any licenses in his name anyway, even if Salman doesn't have on his person his copy of it...  It just seems pointless to me...

[wannabe]

 Poaching case: HC issues notice to Salman

JODHPUR: Admitting a criminal revision petition filed by the state government, Rajasthan High Court has issued notices to film stars Salman Khan, Tabu and Sonali Bendre in connection with dropping of some charges framed against them in blackbucks poaching case by a local court.

However, the High Court has not issued notices to Saif Ali Khan and Neelam, who are also accused in the case, as petitions against them were found to be defective, sources said.

All the film actors are facing poaching charges in connection with the hunting of two blackbucks at Kankani village in the district on the intervening night of October 1-2, 1998 during the shooting of Hindi film 'Hum Saath Saath Hain'. The case is pending in a local court.

The Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, framed the charges against Salman Khan under various sections of IPC, Indian Arms Act and Wild Life Protection (WLP) Act on February 27. Against actors Tabu and Sonali Bendre charges were framed under WLP and IPC.

Additional District Judge of Jodhpur on May 4 last while partially allowing the revision petition filed on behalf of film stars discharged actor Salman Khan from a Section of IPC and a section of Indian Arms Act.

The Court also discharged actors Tabu and Sonali Bendre from any trail under IPC. They would face the trial under WLP Act only, the court had said.

The Rajasthan government has challenged the order of ADJ court in the High Court while filing the criminal revision petition.

During the hearing of revision petition in the High Court Public Prosecutor Vishal Raj Mehta contended that contrary to facts, circumstances and record, the ADJ court has committed a "serious illegality and irregularity".

"The entire prosecution was depending on the cogent and concrete evidence which successfully brought home the guilt of Salman Khan under a section of IPC and a section of Arms Act," he claimed.

Prosecution demanded quashing of order passed by the ADJ and argued that order passed by the District Magistrate, Jodhpur be maintained.

After hearing the matter on admission stage, Justice S P Pathak of the High Court issued the show cause notices to the actors.

Rajasthan Government has also filed revision petitions against Saif Ali Khan, Neelam and Dushyant Singh but no order was passed by the Court as these petitions were defective, sources said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1820271.cms

[Chanchal]

umm, what does that mean exactly?

[wannabe]

umm, what does that mean exactly?

If you are referring to the article posted above your question, it means:

-- a number of charges were initially filed against all the actors

-- the actors then petitioned the court to have some of them dropped, and the court dropped some charges against some of the actors, and kept other charges (different charges for different actors)

-- the prosecution, however, didn't want those charges to be dropped, and appealed to a higher court to have those dropped charges added back again

-- the higher court is now considering whether or not to add back the charges that were previously dropped

[Raspberry_Swirl]

OK.  I only read the last few posts, and I'm thoroughly confused.

1) Is Salman the only actor that could possibly face jail time?
2) Was he sentenced, and now looking to appeal?

[wannabe]

 Raj govt wants jail term of Salman enhanced

PTI
Monday, July 31, 2006 16:05 IST
JODHPUR: The Rajasthan government on Monday sought enhancement of the one-year prison sentence awarded to Bollywood actor Salman Khan by a local court for poaching a chinkara and conviction of actor-comedian Satish Shah and six others acquitted in the case.
It filed a petition in Rajasthan High Court's main Bench challenging the February 17 verdict of Chief Judicial Magistrate B K Jain sentencing Salman to a year in jail for killing the species of gazelle in September 1998 at Bhavad village in the district.


The court had also imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on the 40-year-old actor while acquitting actor-comedian Satish Shah and others - Kuldeep Singh, Mohd Hussain, Yashpal Singh, Mahendra Pal Singh alias Rajubana, Dushyant Singh and M S Bhati.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1044662
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Court summons Salman, seven others
PTI | July 31, 2006 | 16:59 IST

The Rajasthan High Court has issued bailable warrants against Salman Khan and seven others after admitting a state government appeal for enhancement of the jail term awarded to him by a local court in the Bhavad village poaching case of September 1998.

The Leave to Appeal (LA) of the government challenged Salman's acquittal under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act when he was sentenced, in February 2006, to a year in prison for killing a chinkara, a species of gazelle. It also contested the acquittal in the case of actor-comedian Satish Shah and six local residents -- Mohammed Hussain, Kuldeep Singh, Mahendra Pal Singh, Mahendra Singh, Dushyant Singh and Yashpal Singh.

Justice H R Panwar of the court's main Bench observed that the facts and circumstances deemed it a fit case for appeal, and converted the LA to a Criminal Appeal. He directed bailable warrants of Rs 5,000 each for the eight accused and summoned them to appear before court on November 2 and every subsequent hearing.

Chief Judicial Magistrate B K Jain had, in February, convicted Salman in the case under various sections of the Wildlife Protection Act. He was, however, acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 143 (punishment for unlawful assembly), 144, unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence/giving false information) read along with 149 (unlawful assembly) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

http://www.rediff.com/movies/2006/jul/31salman.htm


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Poaching case: Court summons Salman
[ 31 Jul, 2006 1949hrs ISTPTI ]


RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

JODHPUR: The Rajasthan High Court on Monday issued bailable warrants against Bollywood star Salman Khan and seven others after admitting a state government appeal for enhancement of the jail term awarded to him by a local court in Bhavad village poaching case.

They were summoned to appear before it on November 2.The Leave to Appeal (LA) of the government challenged Salman's acquittal under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act when he was sentenced in February to a year in prison for killing a chinkara, a species of gazelle, in at Bhavad village in Jodhpur district September 1998.

It also contested the acquittal in the case of actor- comedian Satish Shah and six local residents - Mohammed Hussain, Kuldeep Singh, Mahendra Pal Singh, Mahendra Singh, Dushyant Singh and Yashpal Singh.

Justice H R Panwar of the court's main Bench observed that the facts and circumstances of deemed it a fit case for appeal converted the LA to a Criminal Appeal.

He directed bailable warrants of Rs 5,000 each for the eight accused and summoned them to appear before the court on November 2 and every subsequent hearing.

Chief Judicial Magistrate B K Jain had on February convicted Salman in the case under various sections of the Wildlife Protection Act.

He was, however, acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 143 (punishment for unlawful assembly), 144, unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence/giving false information) read along with 149 (unlawful assembly) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

TimesofIndia.com

[wannabe]

I never misled the court, says Salman

PTI
Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:50 IST

JODHPUR: Bollywood star Salman Khan has informed a local court that he has not mislead it regarding the statement he made about the license of his weapon in connection with poaching cases against him.

In a reply filed in the Judicial Magistrate court through his counsel, Salman has said the information given bonafidely cannot be taken as malafide in the absence of any ulterior motive.

Judicial Magistrate Dalpat Singh Rajpurohit has on June 26 issued a show-cause notice to Salman for allegedly misleading it while making a statement on oath regarding the license of his weapon.

The directive came after the prosecution told the court that Salman had earlier stated before it that his firearms license was misplaced whereas it was lying with the Mumbai police.

The court had framed charges against the actor for illegal possession of weapons on October 1 and 2, 1998 but the prosecution has urged that Salman must be charged for possessing illegal weapons also from August 28 to September 3, 1998.

The court earlier this year convicted and sentenced Salman in two cases relating to hunting black bucks and chinkaras (species of gazelle) in Bhavad village and Ghoda farms in Jodhpur district in September-October 1998.

A case in connection with the killing of two black bucks in Kankani village of the district on the night of October 1, 1998 is pending against the actor.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1045000

[wannabe]

OK.  I only read the last few posts, and I'm thoroughly confused.

1) Is Salman the only actor that could possibly face jail time?
2) Was he sentenced, and now looking to appeal?

I hope my latest postings of articles didn't confuse you further. 

To answer your questions:

1)  It is possible to be sentenced to jail time under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Wildlife Act (WA) charges.  So theoretically all the people charged can be sentenced to imprisonment, depending on what charges they are convicted.

2)  Salman was previously sentenced on two charges, and both of them are being appealed right now.  However, the latest moves by the prosecution puts those appeals on  hold for the moment, since the prosecution is also appealing those previous sentences, to have them increased, and reopen the previous charges on which Salman was acquitted in the previous two cases.

[James]

2)  Salman was previously sentenced on two charges, and both of them are being appealed right now.  However, the latest moves by the prosecution puts those appeals on  hold for the moment, since the prosecution is also appealing those previous sentences, to have them increased, and reopen the previous charges on which Salman was acquitted in the previous two cases.

Pardon my lack of legal knowledge, but can you do that?  Isn't it unconstitutional?  How can you be tried twice for the same crime?  If he was acquitted, that means there was a trial and he was declared not guilty.  On what grounds is it even possible to reopen such a case?  I find that very confusing...

And I'm flabbergasted that the prosecution wants the previous sentences increased!  This is getting really ridiculous...maybe Salman should hire the defence team working on the Jessica Lal case. 

[Item Number Girl]

In the U.S. it would be unconstitutional. I'm guessing the Indian judicial system has different rules.

[Raspberry_Swirl]

OK.  I only read the last few posts, and I'm thoroughly confused.

1) Is Salman the only actor that could possibly face jail time?
2) Was he sentenced, and now looking to appeal?

I hope my latest postings of articles didn't confuse you further. 

To answer your questions:

1)  It is possible to be sentenced to jail time under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Wildlife Act (WA) charges.  So theoretically all the people charged can be sentenced to imprisonment, depending on what charges they are convicted.

2)  Salman was previously sentenced on two charges, and both of them are being appealed right now.  However, the latest moves by the prosecution puts those appeals on  hold for the moment, since the prosecution is also appealing those previous sentences, to have them increased, and reopen the previous charges on which Salman was acquitted in the previous two cases.

Thanks for clearing all that up.  I'm still somewhat confused, but much less so .  I'm guessing all the charges everyone is talking about now are the IPC charges?

Generally speaking, does it look like Salman is going to go to jail?

[wannabe]

2)  Salman was previously sentenced on two charges, and both of them are being appealed right now.  However, the latest moves by the prosecution puts those appeals on  hold for the moment, since the prosecution is also appealing those previous sentences, to have them increased, and reopen the previous charges on which Salman was acquitted in the previous two cases.

Pardon my lack of legal knowledge, but can you do that?  Isn't it unconstitutional?  How can you be tried twice for the same crime?  If he was acquitted, that means there was a trial and he was declared not guilty.  On what grounds is it even possible to reopen such a case?  I find that very confusing...

And I'm flabbergasted that the prosecution wants the previous sentences increased!  This is getting really ridiculous...maybe Salman should hire the defence team working on the Jessica Lal case. 

James, I had the same reaction the first time I read about the prosecution appealing to reverse an acquittal -- and that had nothing to do with Salman Khan, but was in connection with some murder case in Mumbai.  Anyway, I have now confirmed with someone on another forum, who is a lawyer in India, that yes indeed, they can do that.  The concept of "double jeopardy" as it's called in the U.S. (that is, that a person can't be tried twice for the same charge) apparently isn't there in India.  Why isn't it?  Well, it probably has to do with the fact that the "Indian Penal Code" is really the criminal laws and punishments enacted by the British in 1862, and not really revised or updated since then, so to me, anyway, it all makes sense when viewed as a colonial power imposing its absolute authority, rather than a democratic government protecting its citizens' rights.

As for Salman's cases, they have gone into the theater of the absurd for me now.  I really think that if the prosecution hadn't tried to go in for the kill, so to speak, they would have had a better chance of success.  If their objective was to actually protect the animals, then they should have done a better job of collecting and providing physical evidence.  If the idea was to "make an example" of a celebrity to bring visibility to the cause, then again, I think the purpose would have been served by a diligent investigation and the presentation of an air-tight case.  As it is, their cases are so full of holes that I'm sure they will be either thrown out or Salman will be given some nominal punishment, but unfortunately, it will only be interpreted as a celebrity "getting away" with a crime, since that's the way the media and the NGO's have been spinning it since day one.  That's what I find very sad.