1988 Road Rage Case: Sidhu Convicted, Let Off With Rs 1,000 Fine

Sidhu had told SC that the findings of the High Court were based on “opinion” and not on medical evidence.

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, 15 May, convicted Punjab minister Navjot Singh Sidhu under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) but acquitted him under Section 304(II) (culpable homicide) in the 1988 road rage case.

He will not face any jail term but will be fined Rs 1,000. He will remain minister in the Punjab Cabinet, The Indian Express reported. This is possible despite his conviction because under the Representation of People Act, a person only becomes disqualified from holding a legislative seat if they also get a sentence of more than 2 years.

The Supreme Court on 18 April had reserved its judgment on the appeal filed by cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict convicting and sentencing him to three years in jail in the road rage case. His co-accused in the case, Rupinder Singh Sandhu, had also appealed his conviction.

Sidhu told the Supreme Court that the evidence about the cause of death of the victim was "contradictory" and the medical opinion "vague.”

Sidhu, who had quit the BJP and joined the Congress days before the Punjab Assembly election last year, told a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul that the “most baffling issue” in the case was with regard to the cause of death of the victim, Gurnam Singh.

According to the prosecution, Sidhu and Sandhu were allegedly in a Gypsy parked on the middle of a road near the Sheranwala Gate Crossing in Patiala on 27 December 1988, when the victim and two others were on their way to the bank to withdraw money.

It was alleged that when they had reached the crossing, Gurnam Singh, driving a Maruti car, found the Gypsy in the middle of the road and asked the occupants, Sidhu and Sandhu, to remove it. This led to heated exchanges.

The police had claimed that Singh was beaten up by Sidhu who later fled the crime scene. The victim was taken to a hospital where he was declared dead.

During the arguments, senior advocate RS Cheema, representing Sidhu, questioned the evidence brought on record regarding cause of death of the victim.

The most baffling and disturbing issue in the case is what we have on record with regard to the cause of death. The evidence brought on record was obscure, indefinite and also contradictory.

Senior Advocate RS Cheema

Cheema also argued that the medical opinion was “vague” and contradictions were writ large on it.

When he referred to the statements of prosecution witnesses who had deposed regarding alleged fist blows given by Sidhu to the victim, the bench observed, "there is already a loss of life".

The senior counsel, while wrapping up his arguments, also referred to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealing with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The bench, while reserving the verdict, asked the parties to file their written notes as soon as possible.

Sidhu had on 17 April told the apex court that the findings of the high court were based on “opinion” and not on medical evidence.

Ironically, on 12 April, the Amarinder Singh-led Congress government had favoured in the top court the high court's judgment convicting and awarding of the three-year jail term to Sidhu.

Earlier, the counsel for the state had told the apex court that "the trial court verdict was rightly set aside by the High Court. Accused A1 (Navjot Singh Sidhu) had given fist blow to deceased Gurnam Singh leading to his death through brain hemorrhage."

The state had argued that the trial court was wrong in its finding that the man had died of cardiac arrest and not brain hemorrhage.

The counsel for the complainant had argued that Sidhu's sentence should be enhanced as it was a case of murder and the cricketer-turned-politician had deliberately removed the keys of deceased's car so that he does not get medical assistance.

Sidhu was acquitted of the murder charges by the trial court in September 1999.

However, the high court had reversed the verdict and held Sidhu and Sandhu guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in December, 2006. It had sentenced them to three years in jail and imposed a fine of Rs one lakh each on the convicts.

In 2007, the apex court had stayed the conviction of Sidhu and Sandhu in the case, paving the way for him to contest the bypoll for the Amritsar Lok Sabha seat.

(The Quint is now on WhatsApp. To receive handpicked stories on topics you care about, subscribe to our WhatsApp services. Just go to TheQuint.com/WhatsApp and hit send)