Skip to main content

 

Navjot Singh Sidhu- given ‘Out’ by judicial DRS

Amit Jaiswal*

            On 19th May, 2022 curtains finally came down to a 34 year court case when the Supreme Court sentenced a former Parliamentarian and a former cricketer Navjot Singh Sidhu to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment in a road rage matter.

            On 27.12.1988 a dispute arose on the right of way between accused Navjot Singh Sidhu and Rupinder Singh Sandhu one side and Gurnam Singh (deceased) and Jaswinder Singh on the other side.  Allegations were that Sidhu and Rupinder S. Sandhu inflicted fist blows to the victim side and after receiving blows Gurnam Singh fell on the road and he was taken to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala in an unconscious state by Jaswinder Singh where the doctors announced him dead.   A Board of Doctors was constituted which gave its final opinion:-

“Death in this case is attributed to the effects of head injury and cardiac condition.   However, the head injury in itself could be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature”.  

The trial court acquitted both the accused persons vide its judgment dated 22.9.1999. Among other grounds for acquittal the trial court also recorded that the death was caused due to the cardiac arrest because of which deceased-Gurnam Singh fell on the ground and received head injury. 

On appeal the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the judgment of acquittal vide judgment dated 6.12.2006 and recorded that it was infact the subdural haemorrhage in the left temporal region which caused the death of Gurnam Singh. The High Court convicted Sidhu and his accomplice for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each to be paid to the victim/s.

The matter reached Supreme Court which finally decided the appeals on 15th May, 2018.  The Supreme Court found the evidence against Rupinder Singh Sandhu sketchy and acquitted him.  However, the Supreme Court found the evidence on the record did prove that the Sidhu gave one fist blow on the head of deceased Gurnam Singh.  The Supreme Court also recorded that the medical evidence is uncertain regarding the exact cause of death of Gurnam Singh.  Finally the Supreme Court held that Sidhu is guilty of causing voluntary hurt only.  Noticing that the incident was 30 years old, no weapon was used by the accused and that there was no previous enmity between the parties, the S.C. deemed it fit to impose a fine of Rs.1,000/- upon Sidhu.

However the complainant side filed a review petition before the Supreme Court.  The review jurisdiction in criminal matters is exercised sparingly and on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. 

The S.C. exercised its review jurisdiction and imposed a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment upon Sidhu vide judgment dated 19th May, 2022. The S.C. held that disproportionately light punishment humiliates and frustrates a victim of crime and does not have deterrent effect on the criminal.   The S.C. held that lapse of time in the decision of case/appeal cannot be a ground to award inadequate punishment. 

Supreme Court further observed that a hand can also be used as a weapon where a sportsman or an extremely fit person inflicts the same. The S.C. noticed that Sidhu was an international cricketer, well built and aware of the force of a blow that his hand would carry and its effect.  In view of the author this line of reasoning rather answers the description of offence described in section 299 of Indian Penal Code which says if an act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death then it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.  It may be noticed that Punjab and Haryana High Court had taken this very line of reasoning and convicted Sidhu for culpable homicide. The High Court in its judgment had observed that ‘Gurnam Singh was an old man of 65 years and he could not take the impact of the blow given by a young, physically fit man’.  However judgment passed by the High Court was set aside by the S.C.  In the view of the author once the reasoning adopted by the H.C. was discarded by the S.C. to alter the conviction from culpable homicide to causing voluntary hurt then adopting the same reasoning for passing order of sentence rather shows the ambivalence on the part of S.C.

Besides, there were certain facts which should also have been taken into consideration by the S.C. The convict in the present case was a cricket player who played for India from 1983 to 1999. After retirement he donned the cap of a cricket commentator. In 2004 Sidhu successfully contested parliamentary elections from Amritsar seat. However on 6th December, 2006 he was convicted by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the present case.  Sidhu resigned only on moral grounds and went back to electorate for seeking a fresh mandate and he got the same.  In 2009 general elections he again won Amritsar Parliamentary seat.   Sidhu remained member of Council of States (Upper house of Indian Parliament) from 28.4.2016 to 18.7.2016. Sidhu also remained part of various T.V. shows as a judge and participant.  Sidhu successfully contested Punjab Assembly elections from Amritsar (East) constituency in 2017 and sworn in as a minister for tourism and Local Bodies.

The antecedents of the convict were not so trifle to be brushed under the carpet.  Much water has flown down the bridge since 1988. The lapse of 34 years was just too long a period to be ignored.   Even if the S.C. was convinced that Sidhu was let off with a disproportionately light punishment still there were ways in which the justice could have been done to victim side.  In the opinion of author one such way with the Court was to pass a nominal sentence of imprisonment and to grant reasonable and adequate sum as compensation to the victim under Code of Criminal Procedure.

 

Amit Jaiswal

Advocate

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hanging and Strangulation: A medico-legal analysis

                                                                                                                             Chirag Goyal                                                                                                                              I.             Table of Contents II.  ...

Senior Advocates : Ethics and Duties - By P.S. Khurana

    Senior Advocates : Ethics and Duties - P.S. Khurana * Legal education in India is regulated by the Bar Council of India, which is a statutory body constituted under the Advocates Act. 1961.   There are two ways to obtain the degree to practice law and enroll with the Bar Council of India : (1)      a 3-year LL.B program which requires a prior graduate degree ; and (2)     a 5-year integrated B.A., LL.B. program which can commence immediately after secondary school. Some Universities offer both the five-year and three-year degree program 1 . The advocates enrolled in India are only entitled to ‘practice the profession of law’, which includes not only appearing before courts and giving legal advice as an attorney, but also drafting legal documents, advising clients on international standards and carrying out customary practices and transactions 2 . At the State level the Bar Council of India perform oversight functions and...

The Largest Democracy’s Undemocratic Parliament

  The Largest Democracy’s Undemocratic Parliament - Rohan Choudhary* This monsoon session was the fourth consecutive session of the parliament which was called off before the schedule, barring the winter session of 2020 (which was cancelled due to the pandemic). The opposition kept the parliament at standstill, demanding to have a fair and square discussion on the important issues such as Pegasus Spyware, Farm Laws etc. Now there are two ways to look at this issue, which depends on what side of political fence you stand on. Looking it from the government point of view, there stand have been that parliament can’t function amidst all the chaos and ruckus created by the opposition. If you are on other side, you may hold the view that it’s the fundamental duty of the opposition to hold the government accountable. The pertinent question that needs to be addressed here is about the means used by the opposition to register their protest. Is it right to keep the parliament at standst...