Salman chinkara poaching case: Indian state government assures protection to key witness Dulani
The Rajasthan high court had acquitted Salman Khan in the chinkara poaching case. Inits verdict, the?court said the pellets recovered from the chinkaras were not fired from Khan's licensed gun.
ANI Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
Jul 30, 2016, 09.00 AM
Western India's Rajasthan state government through its home minister Gulab Chand Kataria today assured protection to Bollywood star Salman Khan's 'missing' driver Harish Dulani, a key witness in the chinkara poaching case, who was driving the jeep used by Khan during the alleged chinkara hunt in Jodhpur in 1998, has maintained that he had not come forward earlier due to threats to his life.
"Who has written it is yet not confirmed. I think he has sent it to many others as well. I have talked with Jodhpur commissioner and asked him even if the witness does not want it, the police should be sent there and talk to him. May be he is not writing the letter, someone else is writing it," Kataria said.
He assured help to Dulani in all situations and also guaranteed him of full protection.
"Two things should be made clear after meeting him personally. One is when did he ask for security in the past and when did we not give it. And, now what help he wants from us.we will help him in all situations. We will guarantee him of full protection," he added.
Dulani was reported to be 'missing' since 2002, which weakened the prosecution's case against Khan and had surfaced two days after the actor was acquitted.
He stuck to his claim that the actor had shot the animal dead. However, the Rajasthan high court in its verdict had said the pellets recovered from the chinkaras were not fired from Khan's licensed gun.
Khan was jailed in 2007 for nearly a week for shooting an endangered chinkara. Khan's lawyer, while arguing the case in the court, had contended that the actor had been falsely framed in these cases, merely on the statements of Dulani.
The lawyer argued that Dulani was never available to them for cross-examination, and hence, his statements could not be relied upon in the conviction of Khan.
He had also contended that both the cases have been built on circumstantial evidences and there was no eye-witness or any material evidence against Salman.