From Our Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday sought response within two weeks from Punjab Congress President Navjot Singh Sidhu on a petition on letting him off for lesser offence of voluntarily causing hurt in his conviction in over 32-year old road rage case in 1988 in which a 65-year old man had died.
It was hearing a review petition challenging the sentence awarded to him in May 2018, sparing him of jail term by imposing a fine of Rs 1,000. In September 2018, the court agreed to examine a review petition filed by the family members of the deceased.
Sidhu had also moved an application through an affidavit to quash the review petition.
The matter came up for hearing before a Bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and S K Kaul.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra said they have moved an application to enlarge scope of the notice, quoting an earlier judgment of the top court that a person who causes death cannot and ought not be punished for an offence of the category of hurt.
“In this case, your lordships have been pleased to reduce the conviction of 323 (Section 323 of IPC) and fine,” he said, arguing that the issue merits consideration by the court. Section 232 entailing punishment for voluntarily causing hurt of the Indian Penal Code entails a maximum jail term of up to one year or with a fine up to Rs 1,000 or both.
Senior advocate P Chidambaram, appearing for Sidhu, said the notice issued by the court on the review petition was restricted to quantum of sentence only while Luthra was trying to enlarge the scope of the review by assailing the merits of the judgment.
The Bench, however, told Chidambaram that the whole matter is not required to be haard again, but it will have to be deal with the application filed by the petitioner. When asked to address the court on this issue, Chidambaram wriggled out that the application was served on him only on Thursday and it means reopening the entire judgment.
The Court, however, insisted tthat “we have to consider his application in which cases the nature of offence and conviction, both these issues may be open.” It, however, said it is not disturbing the factual finding arrived at by the court, but it will deal with Luthra’s submission whether on the basis of finding an offence is made out under Section 323 IPC or under any other provision.
The 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 citizen. The top court had also acquitted Sidhu’s 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 1988. Later in September 2018, the apex court had agreed to examine a review petition filed by the family members of the deceased. The apex court’s May 2018 verdict had come on the appeal filed by Sidhu and Sandhu challenging the high court’s 2006 judgment convicting them. According 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 money.
Sidhu was acquitted of murder charges by the trial court in September 1999. However, 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 2006. It had sentenced them to three years in jail and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh each on them.
