1988 road rage death case: SC asks Sidhu to respond to plea seeking review within 2 weeks

A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and S K Kaul said the court will decide on how to proceed after Sidhu files his response.

The bench was hearing the petition filed by relatives of Gurnam Singh, who died in the road rage incident.

The petition sought review of the top court’s May 15, 2018 order by which it set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court order convicting Sidhu of culpable homicide and sentencing him to three-year jail term. It held him guilty of the offence under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC and let him off only with a fine of Rs 1,000.

The Supreme Court had earlier issued notice in the matter, but “restricted to quantum of sentence”.

Appearing for the victim’s family on Friday, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra told the bench that there was “error apparent on the face of the record” in the judgment holding Sidhu guilty of only causing hurt.

Citing an earlier judgment of the apex court, 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 offence is culpable homicide”.

The senior counsel said the court should not restrict the scope of its examination to only the quantum of sentence but must examine it as a whole.

The bench said it cannot be expected to re-appreciate the evidence, saying that would “mean reopening the entire case” and that would be “problematic”. It said Sidhu can still be asked to reply whether the already established facts lead to a different conclusion as far as the offence is concerned.

Senior Advocate P Chidambaram, appearing for Sidhu, opposed the request and said that the notice was limited to the question of sentence. He submitted that the court had already concluded that it was not a case where Sidhu caused death of the victim.

“Two learned judges of this court have come to conclusion after analysing the evidence that it is not a case where he has caused death of the deceased. To review the judgment after four years in respect of the incident that took place in 1988, especially if the notice has been restricted, it cannot be enlarged on that aspect… it would not bring justice if the entire matter is heard again,” he contended.

The bench, however, said, “we don’t want to open the Pandora’s box but you will have to address us on” the application. The court directed that the matter be listed after two weeks.