Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu on Friday told the Supreme Court that the petition seeking extension of the notice in the matter relating to review of the sentence awarded to him in the 1988 road rage case is an abuse of process. Though the top court in May 2018 convicted Sidhu of the offense of “voluntarily causing hurt” to a 65-year-old man in the case, it sentenced him to jail and fined Rs 1,000.
A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and SK Kaul had earlier asked Sidhu to file his reply on the plea that his punishment in the case should not have been only for the petty offense of voluntarily causing hurt. Senior advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for Sidhu said, “This is an extraordinary case in the negative sense, which does not deserve the entertainment of your submission as it has the potential to subvert the basic foundations of criminal justice and hence is an abuse of process.” ” bench during debate
He referred to the apex court’s May 2018 judgment which held that the medical evidence was absolutely inconclusive about the cause of Gurnam Singh’s death. The apex court, which heard the submissions made by the petitioners and advocates appearing for Sidhu, reserved its order.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the petitioners, also referred to the 2018 judgment of the apex court in the matter and said that the postmortem report of the victim says about the injury suffered by the victim. He referred to two earlier judgments of the apex court and said that the matter needs to be reconsidered.
Luthra said, “I am not asking for re-evaluation of the evidence… I am going according to the facts accepted in your ruling of possession.” At the end of the hearing, Singhvi said that the petitioners are seeking a review of the matter by filing an application for extension of notice in the matter.
“It was time before elections. There are no elections now. I don’t know why it suddenly became active,” he said. To this the bench said, “It has nothing to do with elections.
The bench said that notice was issued to Sidhu but he did not appear for more than three years. In September 2018, the apex court had agreed to examine a review petition filed by the family members of the deceased and issued notice, which was limited to the quantum of punishment.
Responding to the application seeking extension of the notice, Sidhu had said that the apex court, after carefully going through the contents of the review petitions, has limited its scope to the quantum of punishment. It is well settled that whenever this Court issues notice limiting the punishment, only arguments to that effect will be heard, unless some extraordinary circumstance/material is shown to the Court. The reply stated that it is respectfully submitted that the contents of the present applications merely reiterate the rejected arguments and do not show any extraordinary material seeking the intervention of this Court on all aspects.
Sidhu had submitted that the petitioners have filed the applications on September 11, 2018 after a lapse of nearly three-and-a-half years from the date of issue of the limited notice and this unaccounted delay without any clear explanation casts doubt on the authenticity of the company. Application. The reply said the apex court had perused all the evidence on record including medical evidence to conclude that the cause of death of Gurnam Singh could not be ascertained.
Sidhu had held that since there is no evidence that the death was caused by a single blow by the respondent (even assuming that the incident had taken place), this court rightly concluded that this section 323 IPC will come under Section 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to Rs 1,000, or with both.
The top court had on May 15, 2018 set aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding Sidhu guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him to three years in jail in the case but for causing hurt to a senior citizen. was convicted of The top court had also acquitted Sidhu’s aide Rupinder Singh Sandhu of all charges saying there was no credible evidence about his presence with Sidhu at the time of the crime 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 came on an appeal filed by Sidhu and Sandhu challenging the high court’s 2006 verdict holding them guilty.
According to the prosecution, Sidhu and Sandhu were in a gypsy parked in the middle of a road near Sheranwala Gate crossing in Patiala on December 27, 1988, when the victim and two others were going to the bank to withdraw money. When they reached the intersection, it was alleged that Gurnam Singh, who was driving the Maruti car, found the gypsy in the middle of the road and asked the occupants, Sidhu and Sandhu, to remove it. This led to a heated exchange.
Sidhu was acquitted of murder charges by the trial court in September 1999. However, the High Court reversed the verdict and convicted Sidhu and Sandhu under section 304(II) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC in December 2006.
It sentenced him to three years in jail and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on him.
read all breaking news , today’s fresh news And Ukraine-Russia War Live Updates Here.