The Supreme Court will on Tuesday pronounce its judgment on Punjab Tourism Minister Navjot Singh Sidhu’s appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict sentencing him to three-year imprisonment in a 1988 road rage case.
A Bench of Justice J Chelameswar and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul – which had on April 18 reserved its verdict on cross-appeals filed by Sidhu, the state of Punjab and the victim’s family – is likely to pronounce its verdict at 10.30 am.
The Bench had heard marathon arguments from senior counsel RS Cheema on behalf of Sidhu, senior counsel R Basant for co-convict Rupinder Singh Sandhu and senior advocates Ranjit Kumar and Siddharth Luthra who represented the complainant in the case.
According to the prosecution, Sidhu and Sandhu were allegedly present in a Gypsy parked near Sheranwala Gate Crossing on December 27, 1988, while Gurnam Singh was on his way to a bank in a Maruti car with two others. As Gurnam asked the Gypsy occupants to give them way, the duo beat him up and fled the scene. Gurnam was taken to a hospital, where he was declared dead.
Sidhu and Sandhu were initially tried for murder but the trial court in September 1999 acquitted the cricketer-turned politician. However, the high court reversed the verdict and held them guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for the death of Gurnam Singh in Patiala 1988.
The high court gave them a three-year jail term and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh each on the convicts. He was given bail in 2007 by the top court, which had also stayed his conviction to enable him contest Lok Sabha by polls from Amritsar that was caused by resignation following the conviction.
If the top court upholds Sidhu’s conviction and the three-year jail term or convicts him of murder and awards him life imprisonment, it would virtually end his political career. Under the present election law, a lawmaker (MP/MLA) immediately loses his seat on conviction and becomes ineligible to contest elections for six years, after the end of the sentence.
While the cricketer-turned politician rubbished the prosecution theory, the Punjab Government had defended the high court’s verdict that sentenced him to three-year jail term. The legal heirs of the complainant have demanded that Sidhu should be convicted of murder.
Defending Sidhu before the Supreme Court, senior counsel RS Cheema had contended the trial court had rightly acquitted him as there was no evidence requiring his conviction.
In his appeal filed in January 2007, Sidhu had submitted that the high court should not have reversed the trial court’s order of acquittal without there being any compelling reasons and circumstances.
Cheema had questioned the evidence brought on record by the prosecution regarding cause of Gurnam’s death. “The most baffling and disturbing issue in the case is what we have on record with regard to the cause of death. The evidence brought on record was obscure, indefinite and also contradictory,” Cheema had said, terming the medical opinion vague and contradictory.
After Cheema had referred to the statements of prosecution witnesses who had deposed regarding alleged fist blows given by Sidhu to the victim, the bench had observed, “The fact remains that there was a loss of life”.
Punjab government counsel Sangram Singh Saron had told the top court that the statement given by Sidhu, denying his involvement in the case was false.
“The trial court’s verdict was unreasonable and was rightly reversed by the (Punjab and Haryana) High Court which convicted the accused,” Saron—who finished his arguments in 105 minutes—had said.
