38.6c New Delhi, India, Sunday, October 01, 2023
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
About Us Contact Us

Navjot Singh Sidhu urges Supreme Court to not punish him any further in the 33yrs old road rage case.

By Lawstreet News Network Lawstreet News Network      Feb 25, 2022      0 Comments      2,041 Views
Navjot Singh Sidhu

Navjot Singh Sidhu urges Supreme Court to not punish him any further in the 33yrs old road rage case. Sidhu says his impeccable political &sporting career should be considered. He was earlier let off with a ₹1000 fine; SC will take up petitions seeking enhancement of punishment.

SC asks Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu to file response on plea seeking that he should be punished for the offence of muder instead of causing hurt for which he was convicted and thereview petition filed against the verdict.

Supreme Court is hearing the review petition against its 2018 verdict which reduced the sentence of Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu to Rs 1000 fine from 3 yrs imprisonment in a 1987 road rage incident in which a person died.

Senior Adv Luthra: this is the error apparent on the face of the record. In reference to Meena case and thus the scope of notice needs to be enlarged.

Sr Adv P Chidambaram for Sidhu: my friend is trying to enlarge the scope of review. Justice Kaul was part of the original judgment and they reached a conclusion that Sidhu did not cause death of deceased and thus case fell under Section 323 IPC

Chidambaram: to review this case after 4 years and for an incident of 1998, i say the scope of notice cannot be enlarged.

Justice Khanwilkar: notice was on circulation and not after hearing the parties.

Justice Khanwilkar: They have filed a formal application now seeking to enlarge the scope of notice

Justice Kaul: we can stick to original notice or in view of an earlier judgment it cannot be treated as a heard case. but we have to deal with the application

Justice Khanwilkar: he wants nature of offence to be correctly defined.

Chidambaram: i would request you for no enlargement and restrict to original notice. But if arguments are needed then we have to file a reply

SC: We have to hold that whether respondent 1 guilty of section 323 is correct in view of the meena case cited. This is the narrow issue otherwise it will open a pandoras box. We can proceed without a formal notice.

Chidambaram: we have to seek instructions whether Brijpal Singh Meena case applies to this case and not go into the facts of the case so that section 323 IPC remains same

Justice Khanwilkar: he is also saying that section 323 will also not lie here

Chidambaram: this means reopening entire application

Justice Kaul: we had issued limited notice and enlarge the scope of notice regarding application of case

Luthra: This section 323 IPC cannot lie in face of material available

SC: Then this will mean reopening the entire case. this will be problematic. we will take Mr Chidambaram's assistance but we cannot review whole judgment if you take us to evidences

Luthra: we are just saying that the death was not due to cardiac arrest.

SC: We will say that factual circumstance is determined and we seek reply on application of this judgment on aspect of sentencing

Luthra: we are the third court here and now you want us to reappreciate the evidence and now you want to make us the fourth court. everything causes cardiac arrest.

Justice Khanwilkar: let Mr Chidambaram reply and we have to decide if the application can be entertained

Chidambaram: Please give me some time

SC: 2 weeks time granted to reply to the application. List after 2 weeks

Share this article:


Leave a feedback about this




Lawstreet Advertisement

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email