SupremeCourt is hearing the review petition against Navjot Singh Sidhu in a 33 year old road rage case
Sr Adv Siddharth Luthra takes the bench through the injuries sustained by victims
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul: We are in review here Mr Luthra. We cannot go through all these evidences and documents again.
Sr Adv Luthra: It was an injury, it was an ante mortem injury and that it was indeed caused by Navjyot Singh Sidhu. When we had argued this matter we had placed in record detailed written submissions
Luthra: Locus here cannot be an objection at all. When the notice was issued we were not there before this court. So there was no delay on our part.
Dr Abhisekh Manu Singhvi: it is a 34 year old incident of 1988. this court has many cases of suspension of sentence etc at high court stage from trial court but this is a case where a detailed reasoned judgment of SC has suspended conviction.
Justice AM Khanwilkar: Is it suspension of sentence or modification?
Singhvi: I am on the first judgment and it was suspension then
SC: How is it relevant today? we are o n judgment on appeal
Singhvi: there was no motive, personal enmity, he resigned and then he sought suspension of conviction. This case is 34 years old.
Justice Kaul: On the lighter side such kind of a battle is not unknown in Punjab
Justice Khanwilkar: Such a fight
Singhvi: Subdural haemorrhage by itself does not cause death and it was noted in earlier judgment. can the scope of notice be enlarged thus in this case? This cannot be challenged like this and this is a finding of this court
Dr Abhiskekh Singhvi shares a joke on Bengali and Punjabi language
Singhvi: Bengali language is so sweet that when the man fights with a woman it sounds like a proposal. Whereas in Punjabi, if a man proposes to the girl, it sounds like a fight since the language is so vigorous
Singhvi refers to the judgment of the top court concerning scope, ambit of the the review petition: review petitions cannot be entertained unless there is an error apparent on the face of record.
Singhvi: One important part of criminal law. state is not in appeal against inadequate sentence and the Supreme Court has held that a challenge to inadequate sentence cannot be preferred by the victim. Thus the victim cannot challenge this.
Singhvi: intention to kill or to inflict injury is alien in this incident.
Singhvi: Please be cautious in criminal matters ...this was listed just before elections. Now elections are over, this has suddenly being activated
Justice Kaul: this has nothing to do with the elections
Justice Khanwilkar: this is wrong submission
Singhvi: I rest my case
Sr Adv R Basant: Question is whether the single injury caused the death of Gurnam Singh..in order to bring it under Section 299 IPC
Singhvi: One sentence, my lord
Justice Kaul: we cannot go on like this
Sr Adv Siddharth Luthra: he relied on a 2020 decision of Parvinder Kansal. It is a 2 judges decision but the judgment I cited is a three judge bench judgment, Mallikarjun case.
Justice Kaul: this has to end on some good day
SC: All parties file supplementary written note within one week.
Judgment reserved.
