The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict on a plea to review its judgment letting off Punjab Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu with a fine of ₹1,000 in a 34-year-old fatal road rage case.
As the Special Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul wrapped up the hearing, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, for the cricketer-turned-politician, questioned the “activation” of the case in the Supreme Court shortly before the crucial Punjab Assembly elections.
“Why was this activated? This was suddenly listed before the elections... Don’t know why this case was activated, and now the elections are over,” Mr. Singhvi remarked.
The Bench said the comment was not fair to the court. “This has nothing to do with the elections,” Justice Kaul said.
Justice Khanwilkar said the court could also infer much more about the case. “That is a wrong argument, Mr. Singhvi,” Justice Khanwilkar said. Mr. Singhvi withdrew the comment.
The case has come back to haunt Mr. Sidhu after over three decades, especially when the family of the victim upped the ante by filing an application claiming the facts show he was responsible for more than hurting the victim. They alleged that he was actually liable for far more grievous offences such as culpable homicide or even murder.
Let off with fine
A man, Gurnam Singh, died in the road rage incident in 1988. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had found Mr. Sidhu guilty of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In appeal, the apex court had set aside the High Court verdict. The top court had held him guilty of the lesser offence of causing voluntary hurt to Singh, saying such road side brawls were a “very common sight in this country”. He was let off with a fine of ₹1,000 in May 2018.
Singh’s family had filed for a review of the judgment the same year. The court had issued a formal notice to Mr. Sidhu, specifically on the quantum of sentence, in September 2018.
On Friday, the court observed that if the facts ultimately show a different offence, the punishment would also change.
Senior advocate Siddarth Luthra, for the family, said the apex court’s own judgment in 2018 proved “the fact of the injury caused to the victim, the fact that the injury was caused ante-mortem and the fact that it was caused intentionally by the respondent [Mr. Sidhu]“.
‘Offence affecting life’
Mr. Luthra argued 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”.
Countering, Mr. Singhvi and advocate A. Karthik said the family’s application, on top of filing for a review petition against the May 2018 judgment, was a ‘review of a review”. Entertaining the application would give rise to a dangerous precedent.
The senior lawyer said the prosecution could not prove any personal enmity or motive behind the death. It was even “highly doubtful” whether the injury had eventually caused the death. Besides, Mr. Sidhu had never violated any conditions of bail and there was no lack of cooperation on his part at any time during the entire journey of 34 years of the case.
The notice issued by the apex court in the review plea was limited and the family cannot enlarge the scope of the case now to re-appreciate evidence,
Mr. Singhvi said aggrieved private parties could only come to court to enhance compensation, and only the State can come for enhancement of the sentence itself.
Senior advocate R. Basant said there was no conclusive evidence to show that any injury allegedly caused by Mr. Sidhu had resulted in the death of Singh.
