Loading...

Supreme Court to review its decision in Navjot Sidhu Road Rage

Supreme Court to review its decision in Navjot Sidhu Road Rage

Supreme Court to review its decision in Navjot Sidhu Road Rage
Supreme Court to review its decision in Navjot Sidhu Road Rage

In the shock of Punjab Tourism Minister Navjot Singh Sidhu, the Supreme Court has decided to review its decision with a fine of `1000 in the 30 year deadly road rage case.

On 15th May, the Supreme Court acquitted Siddhu of culpable homicide in the case of committing a lower crime for voluntarily causing hurt under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice J. The judgment written by a bench led by Chelsevar (now retired) argued that the crime was 30 years old and there was no former hostility between Shri Sidhu and his victim Gurnam Singh. It was also said that the roadside fights were "very common sight" in this country.

Justice Chelsevar, who wrote this decision, found that the payment of ₹ 1000 by the Punjab Minister for the victim's family would "complete the ends of justice".

Suffering from the verdict, Singh's family decided to return to the Supreme Court for a rare measure - even through the hearing of an open court, reviewing its decision.

A bench of Justice AM Khanwillar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul decided that the family's petition had merit. The bench found that the May 15 verdict actually required a relac Incidentally, Justice Kaul Pujari was part of the Bench headed by Justice and Justice Chelsevar, who wrote the May 15 verdict.

The review bench headed by Justice Khanvilkar admitted the petition to the family and issued a notice to Mr Sidhu why his quantity of punishment should not be changed.

"The Review Bench held in an order of September 11 published on September 12 said," Issue notices issued for issuance of Respondent No. 1 - Navjot Singh Sidhu "

If the court decides to swap ₹ 1000 fine for the period of jail under Section 323 IPC, then Siddhu may have to face a year's jail sentence.

On May 15, the Bench headed by Justice Cheleshwar had found in the verdict of the 46 pages that the prosecution could not prove that Sidhu had made Singh a death due to infiltrating along the road in 1988.

Although the Supreme Court admitted that Mr Sidhu had given a blow to the head of the man, but said that medical evidence was "absolutely uncertain" due to the death of Singh shortly after the run.

The Supreme Court had separated the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had convicted Mr. Sidhu and his co-accused for criminal murder, which was not due to murder on the ground that a blow to the head causes a sub-blood pressure. The Supreme Court rejected death as a "pure estimate" by subclinical bleeding.

The court had said, "There is no doubt that investigation has come down" but he said that "The law of this country is not that people are found guilty of crimes on the basis of doubt.
Previous
Next Post »
Loading...