SUPREME COURT on Friday requested Punjab Congress president Navjot Singh Sidhu to reply inside two weeks to a petition, which contends that the already established information within the 1988 street rage demise case – through which he was held responsible of solely voluntarily inflicting harm to a senior citizen – reveal a extra severe offense that necessitates a harsher sentence.
A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and SK Kaul mentioned the court docket will determine on the right way to proceed after Sidhu recordsdata his response.
The bench was listening to the petition filed by kin of Gurnam Singh, who died within the street rage incident.
The petition sought evaluation of the highest court docket’s May 15, 2018 order by which it put aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court order convicting Sidhu of culpable murder and sentencing him to three-year jail time period. It held him responsible of the offense below Section 323 (voluntarily inflicting harm) of the IPC and let him off solely with a positive of Rs 1,000.
The Supreme Court had earlier issued discover within the matter, however “restricted to quantum of sentence”.
Appearing for the sufferer’s household on Friday, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra informed the bench that there was “error apparent on the face of the record” within the judgment holding Sidhu responsible of solely inflicting harm.
Citing an earlier judgment of the apex court docket, Luthra contended that the ruling “is clear determination… that a person who causes death cannot, ought not to be punished in the category of hurt”. He argued that “if hurt has caused death of the victim, the offense is culpable homicide”.
The senior counsel mentioned the court docket shouldn’t limit the scope of its examination to solely the quantum of sentence however should look at it as a complete.
The bench mentioned it can’t be anticipated to re-appreciate the proof, saying that might “mean reopening the entire case” and that might be “problematic”. It mentioned Sidhu can nonetheless be requested to answer whether or not the already established information result in a special conclusion so far as the offense is worried.
Senior Advocate P Chidambaram, showing for Sidhu, opposed the request and mentioned that the discover was restricted to the query of sentence. He submitted that the court docket had already concluded that it was not a case the place Sidhu prompted demise of the sufferer.
“Two discovered judges of this court docket have come to conclusion after analyzing the proof that it’s not a case the place he has prompted demise of the deceased. To evaluation the judgment after 4 years in respect of the incident that came about in 1988, particularly if the discover has been restricted, it can’t be enlarged on that facet… it will not carry justice if the complete matter is heard once more,” he contended .
The bench, nevertheless, mentioned, “we don’t want to open the Pandora’s box but you will have to address us on” the applying. The court docket directed that the matter be listed after two weeks.
,
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
