SC to hear on Mar 25 review plea in 1988 road rage case against Navjot Singh Sidhu
New Delhi Mar 21 PTI The Supreme Court Monday said it would hear on March 25 the plea seeking review of the sentence awarded by it in May 2018 to cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu in a 1988 road rage caseThe matter was listed for hearing before a special bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and S K KaulAs soon the bench of Justices Khanwilkar and A S Oka assembled for hearing matters in the post-lunch session Justice Khanwilkar said the special bench would hear the review plea on FridayThis bench is going to continue with the remaining work So the special bench matter can be taken up on Friday at 2 PM Justice Khanwilkar saidOn February 25 the apex court had asked Congress leader Sidhu to file response within two weeks on an application which has said that his conviction in the case should not have been merely for the lesser offence of voluntarily causing hurtThough the top court had in May 2018 held Sidhu guilty of the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to a 65-year-old man it spared him of a jail term and imposed a fine of Rs 1000Later in September 2018 the apex court agreed to examine a review petition filed by the family members of the deceased and had issued notice restricted to the quantum of sentenceIn a reply filed to the application seeking enlargement of scope of notice Sidhu has said the apex court after a careful perusal of the contents of the review petitions has restricted its scope to quantum of sentenceIt is well settled that whenever this court issues notice confining to sentence arguments will be heard only to that effect unless some extraordinary circumstancematerial is shown to the Court It is respectfully submitted that the contents of the present applications reiterate only overruled arguments and do not show any extraordinary material calling for interference on all aspects from this court the reply saidIt said the petitioners have moved the applications after a lapse of about three-and-a-half-year from the issuance of limited notice on September 11 2018 and this unaccounted delay without any cogent explanation raises doubts on the bonafides of the applications It is respectfully submitted that the present applications seeking expansion of the limited notice will amount to a second review which is impermissible in law it said adding It is further submitted that the petitioners through the present applications are requesting this court to undertake a rovingfishing enquiry and re-appreciate the entire evidence on record The reply said the apex court had perused the entire evidence on record including medical evidence to conclude that cause of death of Gurnam Singh could not be ascertainedThe impugned judgement has specifically concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the injuries inflicted by the accused had resulted in death of the deceased Therefore in this background application of sections 299300 of the Indian Penal Code is not possible as these provisions will only apply when the injury has led to death it saidIt said as there was no evidence whatsoever that the death was caused by the single blow by the answering respondent even assuming the incident did take place this court rightly concluded that the same would fall under section 323 IPC Section 323 punishment for voluntarily causing hurt of the Indian Penal Code entails a maximum jail term of up to one year or with a fine which may extend to Rs 1000 or bothWhile seeking dismissal of the applications the reply said there is no infirmity in the verdict delivered by the apex court and the applications are nothing but a malicious attempt for reopening of a well-reasoned judgmentSenior advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for one of the petitioners had earlier told the apex court that they have moved an application seeking enlargement of scope of the noticeThe apex court had on May 15 2018 set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court order convicting 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 citizenThe top court had also acquitted Sidhus aide Rupinder Singh Sandhu of all charges saying there was no trustworthy evidence regarding his presence along with Sidhu at the time of the offence in December 1988Later in September 2018 the apex court had agreed to examine a review petition filed by the family members of the deceased The apex courts May 2018 verdict had come on the appeal filed by Sidhu and Sandhu challenging the high courts 2006 judgment convicting themAccording to the prosecution Sidhu and Sandhu were in a Gypsy parked in the middle of a road near the Sheranwala Gate Crossing in Patiala on December 27 1988 when the victim and two others were on their way to the bank to withdraw moneyWhen they reached the crossing it was alleged Gurnam Singh driving a Maruti car found the Gypsy in the middle of the road and asked the occupants Sidhu and Sandhu to remove it This led to heated exchangesSidhu was acquitted of murder charges by the trial court in September 1999However the high court had reversed the verdict and held Sidhu and Sandhu guilty under section 304 II culpable homicide not amounting to murder of the IPC in December 2006It had sentenced them to three years in jail and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh each on them PTI ABA SA
New Delhi Mar 21 PTI The Supreme Court Monday said it would hear on March 25 the plea seeking review of the sentence awarded by it in May 2018 to cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu in a 1988 road rage caseThe matter was listed for hearing before a special bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and S K KaulAs soon the bench of Justices Khanwilkar and A S Oka assembled for hearing matters in the post-lunch session Justice Khanwilkar said the special bench would hear the review plea on FridayThis bench is going to continue with the remaining work So the special bench matter can be taken up on Friday at 2 PM Justice Khanwilkar saidOn February 25 the apex court had asked Congress leader Sidhu to file response within two weeks on an application which has said that his conviction in the case should not have been merely for the lesser offence of voluntarily causing hurtThough the top court had in May 2018 held Sidhu guilty of the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to a 65-year-old man it spared him of a jail term and imposed a fine of Rs 1000Later in September 2018 the apex court agreed to examine a review petition filed by the family members of the deceased and had issued notice restricted to the quantum of sentenceIn a reply filed to the application seeking enlargement of scope of notice Sidhu has said the apex court after a careful perusal of the contents of the review petitions has restricted its scope to quantum of sentenceIt is well settled that whenever this court issues notice confining to sentence arguments will be heard only to that effect unless some extraordinary circumstancematerial is shown to the Court It is respectfully submitted that the contents of the present applications reiterate only overruled arguments and do not show any extraordinary material calling for interference on all aspects from this court the reply saidIt said the petitioners have moved the applications after a lapse of about three-and-a-half-year from the issuance of limited notice on September 11 2018 and this unaccounted delay without any cogent explanation raises doubts on the bonafides of the applications It is respectfully submitted that the present applications seeking expansion of the limited notice will amount to a second review which is impermissible in law it said adding It is further submitted that the petitioners through the present applications are requesting this court to undertake a rovingfishing enquiry and re-appreciate the entire evidence on record The reply said the apex court had perused the entire evidence on record including medical evidence to conclude that cause of death of Gurnam Singh could not be ascertainedThe impugned judgement has specifically concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the injuries inflicted by the accused had resulted in death of the deceased Therefore in this background application of sections 299300 of the Indian Penal Code is not possible as these provisions will only apply when the injury has led to death it saidIt said as there was no evidence whatsoever that the death was caused by the single blow by the answering respondent even assuming the incident did take place this court rightly concluded that the same would fall under section 323 IPC Section 323 punishment for voluntarily causing hurt of the Indian Penal Code entails a maximum jail term of up to one year or with a fine which may extend to Rs 1000 or bothWhile seeking dismissal of the applications the reply said there is no infirmity in the verdict delivered by the apex court and the applications are nothing but a malicious attempt for reopening of a well-reasoned judgmentSenior advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for one of the petitioners had earlier told the apex court that they have moved an application seeking enlargement of scope of the noticeThe apex court had on May 15 2018 set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court order convicting 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 citizenThe top court had also acquitted Sidhus aide Rupinder Singh Sandhu of all charges saying there was no trustworthy evidence regarding his presence along with Sidhu at the time of the offence in December 1988Later in September 2018 the apex court had agreed to examine a review petition filed by the family members of the deceased The apex courts May 2018 verdict had come on the appeal filed by Sidhu and Sandhu challenging the high courts 2006 judgment convicting themAccording to the prosecution Sidhu and Sandhu were in a Gypsy parked in the middle of a road near the Sheranwala Gate Crossing in Patiala on December 27 1988 when the victim and two others were on their way to the bank to withdraw moneyWhen they reached the crossing it was alleged Gurnam Singh driving a Maruti car found the Gypsy in the middle of the road and asked the occupants Sidhu and Sandhu to remove it This led to heated exchangesSidhu was acquitted of murder charges by the trial court in September 1999However the high court had reversed the verdict and held Sidhu and Sandhu guilty under section 304 II culpable homicide not amounting to murder of the IPC in December 2006It had sentenced them to three years in jail and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh each on them PTI ABA SA
