He also claimed that the motor vehicle expert, in his entire life, had just conducted tests only on Indian cars of basic models and never checked an imported car.
Actor Salman Khan's defence advocate on Thursday, while advancing the final arguments in the case, claimed that circumstantial evidence clearly showed Khan's vehicle was not speeding and the motor vehicle officer was not an expert to examine the vehicle.
He also claimed that the motor vehicle expert, in his entire life, had just conducted tests only on Indian cars of basic models and never checked an imported car.
What did defence say about airbags?
Defence advocate Shrikant Shivde said, "On the day of the alleged accident, circumstantial evidence points out a fact that the car was not at a speed of 90-100 km/hour. The main reason for the defence to believe this was that the airbags did not inflate. The car was so designed that in case of a major accident, the censors in it would deploy signals to the electronic system, which would cause the inflation of the airbags."
While raising a question on the prosecution's theory, the defence further said, "The prosecution's case that it is a one-sided collision with a speed of 90-100 km/hr, is nothing but a lie. How is it that there is no damage to car, not even the bonnet is pressed by its impact. Are we to believe that the car speed was 90-100km/hr? How is it that the air bag did not inflate? It falsifies security guard Ravindra Patil's version that the car was at a speed of 90-100km/hr."
What about the damaged windshield?
The defence further claimed that the damage on the windshield on the right side appeared as if it was caused by an angry mob, who pelted stones on the car. "How is it that the car which is met with such a huge accident has not damaged any of its internal parts? There was no aviator leakage, no air bag deployed no oil leakage," said Shivde while claiming that the motor vehicle report was falsified.
Defence calls motor vehicle expert's bluff
Shivde further added that when the defence tries to prove that the prosecution's case was a concocted one, the only theory which can be applicable is the defence theory of the blast of the tyre due to some small stones and as a result the steering got hard and thus caused the alleged accident.
"The motor vehicle expert did not use modern technology to check what was the main reason for the mishap, since the police did not want to investigate the actual truth," argued Shivde.
Shivde will continue with the final argument on Friday.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}