Review Against Reduction Of Sentence: Supreme Court Asks Navjot Singh Sidhu To File Reply In Two Weeks

The Supreme Court on Friday asked Navjot Singh Sidhu to file reply on the miscellaneous application seeking punishing Sidhu for the offence of murder instead of causing hurt under section 323 IPC for which he was convicted.The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and SK Kaul accordingly granted Sidhu 2 weeks to submit his response with regards to the same. "Let Mr Chidambaram file his response. Whether the application needs to be entertained is the 1st question. 2 weeks times for filing response to the application. List after 2 weeks," the bench said.Time was granted in the review petition preferred by the victims of Gurnam Singh against the 2018 verdict of the Top Court that had reduced the sentence of Navjot Singh Sidhu to Rs 1000 from 3 years imprisonment in a 1987 road rage accident in which Gurnam Singh had died for February 25, 2022.Courtroom Exchange When the matter was called for hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for the petitioner submitted before the Top Court that the petitioners had filed an application seeking enlargement of the scope of notice. In this regard, he referred to the Top Court's judgment in Brij Pal Singh Meena to submit that a person who causes death ought not to be punished in the category of hurt."Meena's case is clear determination & its judgment of co equal strength that a person who causes death cannot, ought not to be punished in the category of hurt. In this conviction has been reduced to Section 323 & fine," submitted Luthra.He further argued that there was error apparent on the face of record in the judgment against which review has been sought. Referring to the May 15, 2018 verdict, Senior Counsel said, "Once there is non consideration of the previous decision, the decision can be said to be per incuriam. There is an error apparent on the face of the record. This with greatest of respect is error apparent on face of record & goes against settled law of Brij Pal Singh Meena's case. Therefore I seek indulgence to enlarge the scope of notice since it was limited on the aspect of quantum of sentence."Objecting to the application seeking enlargement of the scope, Senior Advocate P Chidambaram appearing for Sidhu submitted that, 2 Learned Judges after analyzing the evidence had concluded that its not the case where Sidhu had caused the deceased's death."In our 47 page judgements 2 learned judges of this court have come to conclusion after analyzing the evidence that it's not a case where he has caused death of the deceased. To review the judgment after 4 years in respect of the incident that took place in 1988 especially if the notice has been restricted, it cannot be enlarged on that aspect," submitted Senior Counsel."It would not bring justice if the entire matter is heard again. We just got the application yesterday," Chidambaram added.Referring to the aspects based on which the application was filed, Justice SK Kaul said, "Mr Chidamabram, there are 2 aspects. We will have to deal with that application. You will have to address us on the issue: Issuing limited notice- don't enlarge it. Why enlargement? You'll have to address us. We can't insist on passing the order without hearing from you. We don't want to open the Pandora box but you will have to address us on this aspect. There is something to be said about the judgment of the court.""He wants the nature of offense to be correctly defined," remarked Justice AM Khanwilkar.Seeking time to file an affidavit in this regard, Senior Advocate P Chidambaram said, "Whether the judgment in Brij pal Singh Meena will apply in this case & whether 323 is correct or not? That's what your lordship wants me to address on. I will address."On Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra raising an issue with regards to the cause of death, the bench said, "This will mean reopening the entire case.See Mr Luthra, this becomes problematic now. Mr Luthra, it can't be an unneeded kind of scenario. We will take Mr Chidambaram's assistance but we cannot review the judgment if you take us to evidence. You are wanting us to re appreciate the evidence. We are the third court here and now you want us to make the 4th court to consider. "The bench thereafter granted 2 weeks time to Navjot Singh Sidhu to file response to the application, directed for listing the matter after 2 weeks.An Impeccable Political And Sporting Career In The Last Three Decades: Sidhu Submits Before Supreme CourtStating that he has had "an impeccable political and sporting career in the last three decades", Navjot Singh Sidhu by way of an affidavit has urged the Supreme Court to not punish him any further in the 33 years old road rage case."More than three decades have passed since the date of the incident. This Hon'ble Court in numerous cases considered fine as an adequate punishment if there has been a long passage of time from the date of offense. It is also relevant to point out that the answering respondent has had an impeccable political and sporting career in the last...

Review Against Reduction Of Sentence: Supreme Court Asks Navjot Singh Sidhu To File Reply In Two Weeks

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Review Against Reduction Of Sentence: Supreme Court Asks Navjot Singh Sidhu To File Reply In Two Weeks

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers