Sidhu admitted his guilt in TV interview, claim road rage victim''s family

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, April 5

An interview given to a TV channel eight years ago appears to be creating fresh trouble for Punjab minister Navjot Singh Sidhu.

In a new twist in 1988 road rage case against Sidhu, the legal heirs of the complainant in the case have filed a fresh plea in the Supreme Court accusing the cricketer-turned-politician of having admitted his guilt in the interview given to 'India TV' in 2010.

The application alleged that during the said interview given to India TV show 'Aap Ki Adalat' hosted by journalist Rajat Sharma eight years ago and re-telecast last night at 10 pm, Sidhu "had admitted not only to the involvement of both the accused in the brawl on the date of the incident but also admitted and accepted hitting the victim Sh Gurnam Singh with fist blows resulting in his death".

The complainant - who is seeking the conviction of both the accused for murder - submitted a CD and a YouTube link of the interview and sought the court's permission to place it on record terming it "a piece of evidence which is absolutely vital and necessary for complete elucidation of the truth".

Describing the interview as an "extra-judicial confession", the applicant said it could not be produced earlier as the same has only now come to his knowledge.

He said it was "necessary, expedient and in the interest of justice" that the additional evidence be taken on record and considered in deciding the criminal appeal.

The complainant was represented by senior advocates Ranjit Kumar, Siddharth Luthra and advocate Sudhir Walia.

On behalf of Sidhu, senior counsel RS Cheema opposed it on the ground that such a plea cannot be entertained after the trial was over and the case was at the stage of appeal in the Supreme Court. If at all it had to be filed, it should have been filed before the trial court or at best the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

"Do you want the case to be remanded back to trial court," asked a bench of Justice J Chelameswar and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

However, the bench said it would hear both the sides on maintainability of the application on Tuesday.

According to the prosecution, Sidhu and his friend Rupinder Singh Sandhu were allegedly present in a Gypsy parked near Sheranwala Gate Crossing on December 27, 1988 while Gurnam Singh (the deceased) was on his way to a bank in a Maruti car with two others. As Gurnam asked the Gypsy occupants to give them way, he was beaten up by the accused who fled the scene. Gurnam was taken to a hospital where he was declared dead.

Sidhu and Sandhu were initially tried for murder but the trial court in September 1999 acquitted the cricketer-turned-politician. However, the high court reversed the verdict and held him and co-accused Sandhu guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for the death of Gurnam Singh in Patiala in 1988.

The high court sentenced them to three-year imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh each on the convicts. He was given bail in 2007 by the top court, which had also stayed his conviction to enable him contest Lok Sabha by polls from Amritsar that was caused by resignation following the conviction.

In his appeal filed in the top court in January 2007, Sidhu had contended that the high court should not have reversed the trial court's order of acquittal without there being any compelling reasons and circumstances. 

Last month, Sandhu had denied his presence at the crime scene and questioned the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision to reverse the trial court's acquittal verdict.

Earlier, Cheema had on behalf of Sidhu assailed the high court's verdict and questioned the prosecution theory that Gurnam died due to the injuries caused in the assault. The victim died due to cardiac arrest and not because of the alleged physical assault by the accused duo, he had told the bench.

On behalf of the complainant, Ranjit Kumar had on Tuesday accused the prosecution of trying to help the accused during the trial. He, however, contended that merely because there were certain lapses on the part of the prosecution, it can't be a ground for acquittal as there was direct evidence of two witnesses against them. "It's a settled legal position," Kumar had said.