SC reserves verdict on plea seeking review of its order letting Navjot Sidhu off with a fine of Rs 1,000 in 1988 road rage case

New Delhi, March 25

Advertisement

The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict on a petition seeking review of its order letting off Punjab Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu with a fine of Rs 1000 in the 1988 road rage case in which a man had died.

A Bench led by Justice A M Khanwilkar reserved the verdict hearing arguments from senior advocate AM Singhvi, representing Sidhu and senior counsel Siddharth Luthra for review petitioner.

Describing it as an extra-ordinary case, Singhvi submitted that the Sidhu didn’t have any intention to kill, no personal enmity, no motive, no violation of bail conditions and the top court had even suspended his conviction to enable him contest polls after he resigned following his conviction.

He urged the Bench not to enhance the sentence, saying the top court doesn’t interference with the sentence, except in death penalty cases of ‘rarest of the rare’ category.

Luthra, however, said, it didn’t matter if there was no intention to cause death. The intention to cause an injury of a kind that was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to attract a higher punishment, he added.

The petitioner has sought a review of the Supreme Court’s 2018 order letting off Sidhu with a fine of Rs 1,000 in the 1988 road rage case in which one Gurnam Singh had died. Sidhu was acquitted of homicide charges May 15, 2018, by the top court but convicted of voluntarily causing hurt to the deceased and ordered to pay a fine of Rs 1,000.

The Supreme Court had on September 12, 2018, agreed to consider a petition seeking review of its May 15, 2018, order.

Sidhu was initially tried for murder but the trial court in September 1999 acquitted him. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed the verdict and held them guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and gave him a three-year sentence. But the top court in its May 15, 2018 verdict let him off by asking him to pay Rs 1,000 fine.

In his affidavit, Sidhu had said, “It is well settled that whenever this court issues notice confining to sentence, arguments will be heard only to that effect unless some extraordinary circumstance/material 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.”

Terming it a “malicious attempt for reopening of a well-reasoned judgment”, he had urged the court to dismiss the review petition on account of “unaccounted delay without any cogent explanation” that raised doubts on his bona fides.