Supreme Court to reconsider fine punishment to Sidhu in road-rage case
New Delhi, Sep 12 : The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to reconsider the quantum of punishment to former cricketer Navjot Singh Sidhu as he had been let off with a fine of just Rs 1,000 for causing simple injury in a 30-year-old road-rage case.
Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul admitted a review petition filed by a son of deceased Gurnam Singh and issued notice to Sidhu, now a Punjab Cabinet Minister.
"Permission to file the review petition is granted... issue notice restricted to quantum of sentence qua respondent no. 1 - Navjot Singh Sidhu," the order said.
On May 15, the apex court had acquitted Sidhu of the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, for which he had been awarded three-year jail.
A bench of Justice J. Chelameswar (now retired) and Justice Kaul had, however, convicted him for causing simple injury and imposed a fine of Rs 1,000 without any jail term.
The court also acquitted co-accused and his cousin Rupinder Singh Sandhu.
In its judgment, the bench had said: "No doubt that there are lapses in the investigation. We cannot hazard a guess whether such lapses occurred because of the general inefficiency of the system or as a consequence of a concerted effort made to protect the accused. The law of this country is not that people are convicted of offences on the basis of doubts."
Setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict that convicted Sidhu, the apex court had said: "... the first accused cannot be held to be responsible for causing the death of Gurnam Singh. Therefore, the judgment under appeal is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The material on record leads us to the only possible conclusion that we can reach that the first accused voluntarily caused hurt to Gurnam Singh punishable under Section 323 of the IPC."
Section 323 (voluntary causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code stipulates a punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs 1,000 or both.
The bench had refused to award jail term to Sidhu and only imposed a fine, while considering that the "case is 30-year-old, there was no past enmity between the accused and the deceased, no weapon was used by the accused and the background in which it happened".
The incident dates back to December 27, 1988, when Sidhu and his cousin had beaten up Gurnam Singh and two others in what was described as a road-rage case. Gurnam Singh later died.
On April 12 this year, the Punjab government supported the High Court decision to convict Sidhu. It told the apex court that the 65-year-old victim had died after a fist blow from the cricketer turned politician.
The state had said there was no evidence at all to suggest that Gurnam Singh died due to cardiac arrest and not brain haemorrhage.
In 1999, the trial court in Patiala had acquitted Sidhu and his cousin, saying the medical report stated that the death was due to a heart attack.
The High Court in December 2006 had overturned the lower court's decision. Sidhu was awarded three years in jail.
The apex court in 2007 stayed the conviction after counsel appearing for Sidhu had contended that High Court findings were based on opinions and not medical evidence.
Sidhu's lawyer had argued that there were deficiencies in the medical evidence and the prosecution witnesses had given different statements on oath before the trial court.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
BCI urges CJI to take action against Andhra HC judge for sending young lawyer to 24-hour custody
New Delhi (PTI): The Bar Council of India on Wednesday sought the urgent intervention of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant following a "deeply disturbing" incident where a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reportedly sent a young advocate to
24-hour judicial custody over a procedural lapse.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, in a formal representation, termed the conduct of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao "grossly inappropriate" and "damaging to the confidence of the Bar".
“I most respectfully request your Lordship to kindly take immediate institutional cognizance of the matter and call for the video recording of the proceedings, the order passed, and the surrounding circumstances.
“I further request that appropriate administrative action may kindly be considered, including withdrawal of judicial work from the learned Judge pending review, his immediate transfer to some far off High Court, and his nomination for appropriate judicial training/orientation on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional exercise of contempt/judicial authority,” Mishra wrote.
This representation is made to preserve the “dignity, moral authority and public confidence of the judiciary”, he said, adding, “Judges command the highest respect not by fear, but by fairness, patience, restraint and constitutional humility”.
The communication urged the CJI to intervene at the earliest to ensure that the faith of Bar, particularly young advocates, in the protective and corrective role of the judiciary is restored.
The controversy stems from proceedings on May 5.
According to the BCI, a video circulating online shows Justice Rao rebuking a young advocate who was unable to produce a specific order copy during a hearing.
The letter said that despite the advocate "repeatedly seeking pardon and mercy" and claiming he was in physical pain, the judge remained "unmoved".
The judge allegedly told the lawyer, "now you will learn," and mocked his experience before directing the Registrar and police personnel to take him into custody for 24 hours.
The BCI chairperson said that the judge’s actions lacked proportionality and fairness.
"The dignity of the court is not enhanced when a lawyer is made to beg for grace in open court and is still sent to custody for a procedural lapse," the letter said.
"A young lawyer... is an officer of the Court, still learning, still growing, and entitled to correction without humiliation," it added.
The bar body said that such actions create a "chilling effect" on the legal fraternity, particularly among junior members, and undermine the mutual respect required between the Bench and the Bar.
