Chandigarh, December 6
Former BJP MP from Amritsar and ex-Indian cricketer Navjot Singh Sidhu was today sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The case in which Mr Sidhu and another person, Mr Rupinder Singh Sandhu, have been sentenced relates to the death of a 65-year-old Patiala resident, Gurnam Singh, after the two beat him up over a minor issue of parking of vehicles.

However, taking into consideration the stand of both the sides that they would appeal against the punishment in the Supreme Court, the Division Bench comprising Mr Justice Mehtab Singh Gill and Mr Justice Baldev Singh suspended the sentence till January 31 to enable them to file the appeal.

The court also directed Mr Sidhu and Mr Sandhu to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Chandigarh, to furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with equal sureties by December 8. The CJM would then grant bail to them to his satisfaction.

It may be recalled that on December 1, the Bench headed by Mr Justice Mehtab Singh Gill had found Mr Sidhu and his accomplice guilty under Section 304-Part-II of the IPC for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In doing so, the court had overturned the order of acquittal passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala, in 1999.

In its 38-page order, the Bench also ordered that the fine paid by Mr Sidhu would be given to the widow of the victim while out of the Rs 1 lakh fine to be paid by the second accused, Rs 90,000 would be paid to the widow and Rs 10,000 to Mr Jaswinder Singh, who had also been attacked by Mr Sandhu.

In the event of non-payment of fine, the sentence would be extended by another six months.

Sidhu is currently on bail in the case which was granted by the High Court on November 29, 2000, while admitting the appeal against his acquittal by a lower court.

Earlier, during exhaustive arguments on the issue of quantum of punishment, counsel for Mr Sidhu, Senior Supreme Court lawyer U.U. Lalit, pleaded leniency on the grounds that it was an unintentional crime.

“Everything happened on the spur of the moment. It wasn’t pre-planned or intentional. They were not armed or used any weapons. Moreover, the accused did not take advantage of the situation. My client deserves to be dealt with mercifully keeping these facts in mind,” Mr Lalit pleaded.

He further said that it was a fit case where the accused should be let off with a fine, or, in the alternative, a short sentence of less than one year.

Mr Lalit also cited a number of reported judgement in cases where accused under Section 304 Part II, who had used weapons resulting in deaths, had been let off with fines only.

He also stated that apart from having been a cricketer of international stature, Mr Sidhu was a public figure who had an unblemished career except for the present case.

He also prayed that in case the court decided to award prison term to his client, the sentence could be suspended.

However, rebutting the case of counsel for the accused for lenient punishment, Mr R.S. Ghai, senior advocate appearing for the son of the victim, said the Supreme Court had in a case ruled that undue sympathy should not be shown at the time of awarding punishment.

He also questioned the power of the court to suspend the sentence.

Senior Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab, S.S. Randhawa, appearing for the State of Punjab, also prayed for maximum punishment to the accused.