Sidhu gets 1-yr jail in road rage case
NEW DELHI: The consequences of losing temper must be borne, the Supreme Court said on Thursday while sentencing Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu to one year in jail in a 1988 road rage case from Punjab, in which he was let off three years ago with a fine of meagre ₹ 1,000.
Enhancing Sidhu’s punishment on a plea filed by the family members of 65-year-old Gurnam Singh, who died in the road rage incident involving Sidhu and his friend Rupinder Singh Sandhu, a bench of justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul handed out the maximum punishment to the former cricketer under Section 323 of the IPC. The maximum punishment under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) is a jail term of one year or a fine of ₹1,000.
“In addition to the fine imposed, we consider it appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a period of one-year rigorous imprisonment to be undergone by respondent No.1 (Sidhu),” stated the court.
The court order comes as a huge setback for Sidhu, who lost elections from Amritsar East in the Punjab Assembly polls concluded in March, and also quit his post of Punjab Congress chief following the party’s rout.
Meanwhile, Sidhu, 58, took to Twitter to say he “will submit to the majesty of law”.
The bench admitted that “indulgence was not required to be shown” by the Supreme Court in May 2018 when it chose not to impose any jail term on Sidhu even though the incident eventually resulted in the death of a senior citizen.
“A disproportionately light punishment humiliates and frustrates a victim of crime when the offender goes unpunished or is let off with a relatively minor punishment as the system pays no attention to the injured’s feelings,” held the bench.
“Respondent No.1 (Sidhu) cannot say that he did not know the effect of the blow or plead ignorance on this aspect. It is not as if someone has to remind him of the extent of the injury which could be caused by a blow inflicted by him...the hand can also be a weapon by itself where say a boxer, a wrestler or a cricketer or an extremely physically fit person inflicts the same,” said the bench. Noting that a single fist blow by Sidhu on the deceased’s head in the incident stands established, the court said losing sight of the significance of this fact “is an error apparent on the face of the record, needing some remedial action.”
The bench accepted submissions by senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, who on behalf of the deceased’s family argued that the punishment must be proportionate to the offence and should take into account the deterrence aspect.
“If the courts do not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance and, therefore, it is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed,” it highlighted. The bench turned down the family’s plea to enhance the scope of the review plea and also consider convicting Sidhu under the graver charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder but agreed that a fitting punishment has to be given in the facts of the case.
According to the prosecution, Gurnam Singh was beaten up by Sidhu in a road rage incident at Patiala in December 1988. The victim was taken to a hospital where he was declared dead.
Responding to the court notice, Sidhu had filed his affidavit in February 2022, stating that he has had “an impeccable political and sporting career in the last three decades” and that he should not be punished with a jail term. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and R Basant appeared for Sidhu and argued in March that a review petition on the quantum of sentence was not maintainable in law. They added even a fine is adequate without any incarceration when there is a prolonged time since the date of incident.