The defence counsel had argued in the court that Khan was in possession of just airguns which could not be used for hunting an animal and the fire arms had been brought by an aide of Khan on demand of the forest department.
Replying to this argument, the prosecution cited the statement of a police office Satyamani Tiwari, who on complaint of missing revolver by Khan, had searched his hotel room and found the revolver in the room itself besides one rifle and an airgun.
"This statement of Tiwari confirms that Khan was in possession of the fire arms which had been used by Khan for poaching and he was lying that he had called these arms only on requisition of the forest department officials," argued Additional Advocate General K L Thakur before Justice Nirmaljit Kaur.
The HC is hearing an appeal by Khan against his one-year sentence.
For corroborating the statements of Harish Dulani, chief prosecution witness and the driver of Khan's vehicle then, the prosecution also cited the statements of some prosecution witnesses as the evidence recovery witnesses and signatory of the memos of these recoveries.
"Since there was no material evidence, we are trying to corroborate the allegations on Khan with the help of correlating the statements of the witnesses with a view to proving that there were the arms and there were the blood stains both in the vehicle and the hotel where the animals had been taken for cleaning and cooking," said the government counsel Mahipal Bishnoi.
Khan was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment by the lower court in 2006 for poaching of 2 chinkaras in village Bhawad on 27-28 September, 1998 during the film shooting of 'Hum Saath Saath Hain.'
Khan had appealed in the session court against this judgment, which was later on transferred to the high court.
