Road Rage Case: Fresh Trouble For Sidhu As Apex Court Seeks His Respond To Plea To Enlarge Scope Of Review Petition

(Judicial Quest News Network)

The Supreme Court on Friday asked Navjit Singh Sidhu to file reply on an application seeking punishing Sidhu for the offence of murder instead of causing hurt under section 323IPC for wwhich he was convicted in a 32-year old road rage case

The Punjab Congress Chief Navjeet Singh Sidhu is given two weeks’ time to respond to the Apex Court’s Notice.

The bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and SK Kaul allowed the petition and granted two weeks’ time to Sidhu for response.

The review petition preferred by the Victims of Gurnam Singh against the 2018 verdict of the Apex Court.

Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the victim’s family sought punishment under graver offences.

Senior Congress leader and Advocate P.Chidambaram representing Sidhu, argued that the initials application from the petitioner was only about quantum of sentence and not nature of offence.

The Apex Court had on May 15,2018, set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court order convicting Navjot Singh Sidhu of culpable homicide and awarding him a three-year jail term in the case but had held him guilty of causing hurt to a senior citizen.

In 1988, Sidhu was an accused in a road rage case in which Gurnam Singh from Patiala had died, in May, 2018,the Apex Court let Sidhu off by imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000/-

Siddharth Luthra referred to the Apex Court’s Judgement in Birj PalSingh Meena to submit that a person who causes death ought not to be punished in the category of hurt.

Reliance was placed on Richpal Singh Meena Vs Ghasi (Delivered by Justice Madan B Lokur)

“Meena’s case is clear determination & its judgement of co-equal strength that a person who causes death ought not to be punished in the category of hurt. In this conviction has been reduced to Section 323 & fine.

Mr. Luthra further contended that the May 2018, judgement of the Apex Court, letting Mr. Sidhu off with a fine of Rs, 1000/- demonstrated “error apparent on the face of the record”. He urged the court to not restrict its scope of examination to just the quantum of sentence but to the matter as a whole.

“it has come in evidence that the accused removed the key from the ignition of the car  and the site after  causing fatal injury to a vital part of the deceased’s body (i.e. head)Thus ensuring that the deceased would not be able to get any medical aid. It has also come in evidence that sGurnam Singh had to be taken to the hospital in a man-pulled Rickshaw and was declared dead on arrival the family submitted in its application.

During the hearing the court said that it cannot afford to open the Pandora’s Box now. Mr. Sidhu can be asked to respond on the point whether the already established facts in the case would reveal a crime other than voluntary causing of hurt. “That is, do the established facts show a different conclusion other than hurt… “Justice Kaul observed.

The court gave Mr. Sidhu two weeks’ time to file response to the family’s application.