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
Post a Comment