Supreme Court convicted and fined Navjot Singh Sidhu in 1988 Road Rage Case

Must Read

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector &...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Follow us

Supreme Court on Tuesday 15 May 2018 held Punjab Tourism Minister Navjot Singh Sidhu guilty in a 1988 road rage case. The cricketer-turned-politician was convicted under Section 323 IPC (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) which entails a maximum prison sentence for up to one year or with a fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000 or both.

Facts of the case

On 27 December 1988, Navjot Singh Sidhu and his aide Rupinder Singh Sandhu had illegally parked their Gypsy in the middle of a road near the Sheranwala Gate Crossing in Patiala, Punjab during the day. Gurnam Singh, the victim, in this case, had come along with his friends at this time, driving a Maruti car, on his way to the bank and found the road blocked by Sidhu’s car. He asked Sidhu and Sandhu to move the car so that he could pass. This topic of conversation led to heated verbal exchanges and Mr. Sidhu had hit the 65-year-old Gurnam Singh who collapsed suddenly. He was then taken to a hospital but was declared dead on arrival.

Subsequently, both Mr. Sidhu and his companion were arrested for road rage, use of excessive force and they were booked on murder charges. The trial court found the then BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) leader, Mr. Sidhu not guilty on murder charges and set him free in September 1999. But a revision petition was lodged on April 12, 2000, by the Amarinder Singh-led Congress government at the Punjab and Haryana High Court where the counsel for the state government claimed, “Sidhu had given fist blow to deceased Gurnam Singh leading to his death through brain haemorrhage.”

The High Court after reviewing the trial court’s verdict (the victim had died of cardiac arrest and not brain haemorrhage) held that the lower court’s verdict was erroneous and convicted both Sidhu and Sandhu under Section 304 (II) IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Both were sentenced to three-year jail and was imposed a fine of Rs one lakh each by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in December 2006. The Apex Court later in 2007 stayed the conviction of Mr. Sidhu and his aide (Sandhu) thus, allowing him to contest in the by-poll for Amritsar Lok Sabha seat.

Court ruling

The case came up for trial in the Supreme Court based on a petition filed by Mr. Sidhu’s counsel R S Cheema where Senior advocate Cheema argued, “the evidence brought on record was obscure, indefinite and also contradictory.” He further pointed out that the medical opinion as to the cause of death is vague, stating “the most baffling and disturbing issue in the case is what we have on record with regard to the cause of death.”

Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the Supreme Court were presented with the case. They went over both the trial court’s and the High Court’s verdicts and convicted Sidhu in the 30-year-old case of “voluntarily hurting” the deceased in the 1988 roadside brawl. The Court, however, held that the accused (Sidhu) was convicted under Section 323 IPC  (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and not under Section 304 (II) IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Rupinder Singh Sandhu was exonerated of all charges in this case by the Supreme Court.

The verdict stated that given that it was a 30-year-old case, and prior to the incident the victim and the perpetrators were strangers with no enmity between them the punishment should befit the crime. The punishment under Section 323 IPC for the charges against Mr. Sidhu is maximum up to one year in jail or a fine of Rs. 1,000 or both. But the Apex Court ruled “a fine of Rs 1,000 would meet the ends of justice in this case.”

Impact of the Supreme Court verdict

A visibly elated Mr. Sidhu thanked the Almighty God and his Congress Party leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi as this judgment allowed him to hold onto his ministerial post in the Punjab government. Once again the Supreme Court’s judgment upholds our Constitutional mandates of equality and justice in our democratic process of governance. Amarinder Singh‘s tweet, “law has duly taken its course” beautifully sums up the impact of the verdict in this case.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -