New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday sentenced former Punjab Congress chief Navjot Singh Sidhu to one year rigorous imprisonment in a 1988 road rage case that resulted in the death of 65-year-old Patiala resident Gurnam Singh.
Reacting to the verdict, Sidhu wrote on Twitter, “Will bow before the glory of law…”.
The two-judge bench was hearing a review petition filed by Gurnam Singh’s family challenging the Supreme Court’s May 2018 order acquitting Sidhu from fine under section 323 of the IPC – Anyone who “willfully hurts” will be punished. Imprisonment up to one year or fine of Rs 1,000.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that certain “material aspects” that were missed at the sentencing stage included Sidhu’s “physical fitness” as he was an international cricketer, who was “tall and well-built”. and was aware. The force of a blow that even his hand would bear”.
“The attack was not made on a physically fit person but on a 65-year-old man who was more than twice his (Sidhu’s) age,” the court said. Boxer, wrestler or cricketer or extremely physically fit person does the same thing.”
“When a 25-year-old man, who was an international cricketer, attacks a person more than twice his age and inflicts a severe blow on his (victim’s) head, even with his bare hands, the unintended consequence of the damage is now Will also happen. should be appropriately accounted for as it was reasonably foreseeable,” the court said.
However, Justices AM Khanwilkar and SK Kaul dismissed the petition seeking extension of the review petition to examine whether Sidhu could be charged under more serious provisions like Section 304 of the IPC, which provides for a 10-year jail term. There is a provision from jail to life imprisonment. Unintentional murder does not amount to murder.
The cricketer-turned-politician was sent to jail on 11 January 2007 in connection with the case, but was granted bail the very next day. His last recourse is now a curative petition in the Supreme Court challenging Thursday’s decision.
Read also: Warning to opponents? Why Congress expels former MLA after calling new Punjab chief ‘corrupt’
1988 road rage case
According to the Supreme Court’s decision, a fight broke out in Patiala on 27 December 1988 between Sidhu and his friend Rupinder Singh Sandhu on one side and three others including Gurnam Singh over the “right of way”.
In the scuffle that followed, the duo allegedly thrashed Gurnam Singh and fled the spot. Singh was then taken to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead on arrival.
A case was registered against Sidhu and Sandhu under section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC. Later both were also tried for murder.
While both were acquitted by a trial court on 22 September 1999, the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted on 1 December 2006 and found Sidhu guilty under section 304 while sentenced to three years imprisonment.
On 15 May 2018, the Supreme Court quashed the HC’s decision, observing that when it was established that Sidhu had punched Gurnam Singh, “no weapon was used, nor was the accused and there was any previous enmity between the deceased”.
“It all started with a dispute over the right of way, which resulted in a dispute between them, a very common sight in this country,” the top court said, adding that Sidhu “cannot be held responsible for Gurnam’s death”. ” Lion”.
However, the bench found Sidhu guilty of voluntarily causing hurt to Gurnam Singh, which is punishable under section 323 of the IPC.
The court had also taken note of the uncertainty regarding the cause of death of Gurnam Singh, as neither the concerned pathologist had given a definite opinion on the cause of death nor a six-member medical board was constituted to probe the matter.
It was in September 2018 that the Supreme Court agreed to investigate review petition Gurnam Singh’s family had filed against the apex court’s May 2018 verdict.
A two-judge bench hearing the review petition had reserved its decision on March 25.
In its ruling on Thursday, the court said that “unjustified sympathy for inflicting an inadequate sentence will do more harm to the justice system and undermine public confidence in the efficacy of the law”.
It said that among the factors to be taken care of is the “defense and vulnerable position of the victim” as appropriate in the facts of the present case.
Therefore, the bench extended the sentence of Sidhu, observing that “there was no need to show indulgence at the stage of punishment by merely awarding the penalty and leaving the defendant without any punishment”.
(This story has been updated to accommodate additional details)
(Edited by Amritansh Arora)
Read also: Sidhu calls the party ‘corrupt’ Punjab Congress in-charge demands disciplinary action