The Supreme Court on Friday asked Punjab Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu to respond to a plea that the facts of a 34-year-old fatal road rage case show he is responsible for a far more grievous crime, like culpable homicide or even murder, than causing hurt to the victim.
Gurnam Singh died in the road rage in 1988. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had found Mr. Sidhu, cricketer-turned-politician, guilty of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In appeal, the apex court set aside the High Court verdict. The top court had held him guilty of the lesser offence of causing voluntary hurt to Mr. Singh, saying such roadside brawls were a “very common sight in this country”. He was let off with a fine of ₹ 1000 in May 2018.
Mr. Singh's family filed for a review of the judgment the same year. The court issued a formal notice to Mr. Sidhu, specifically on the quantum of sentence in September 2018.
‘Enlarge scope of examination’
The family, represented by senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, has now filed an application asking the court to enlarge the scope of its examination. Mr. Luthra argued that "if hurt has caused death of the victim, the offence is culpable homicide".
Referring to past apex court judgments, on Friday, Mr. Luthra argued before a Special Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and S.K. Kaul that "when there is death of a human being, it may either be culpable homicide [amounting or not amounting to murder]... Offences affecting life are distinct from the offence of hurt. If hurt results in death, intended or unintended, the offence would fall within the category of an offence affecting life".
Mr. Luthra contended that the May 2018 judgment of the apex court, letting Mr. Sidhu off with a fine of ₹ 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 fled 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 Gurnam Singh had to be taken to the hospital in a man-pulled rickshaw and was declared to be brought dead on arrival," the family said in its application.
During the hearing, Justice Kaul prima facie said the court cannot be expected to re-appreciate the facts and evidence in the case at the review stage.
Justice Kaul said the court cannot afford to open a Pandora's box now. Mr. Sidhu could 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.
If the family was pushing for a fresh examination of the case as a whole, Mr. Sidhu may even argue for an outright acquittal, he stated.
Mr. Sidhu, represented by senior advocate P. Chidambaram and advocate A. Karthik, countered that the September 2018 notice was limited to the question of quantum of sentence.
Chidambaram’s submission
"The scope of the case cannot be enlarged when the review is being taken up four years after the issuance of notice in the review petition and 34 years after the incident occurred," Mr. Chidambaram submitted.
Justice Khanwilkar asked Mr. Chidambaram to file his reply. The court would decide how to proceed after that, he said.
The court gave Mr. Sidhu two weeks to file his response to the family's application.
Mr. Sidhu has urged the Supreme Court to weigh in his "impeccable" record in politics and cricket while reviewing the May 2018 judgment.
