Cricketer-turned politician Navjot Singh Sidhu on Tuesday got second time lucky in the Supreme Court which acquitted him of the grievous charge of culpable homicide after a fist blow by him led to man’s death during a road rage incident in Patiala almost 30 years ago.
Instead, the apex court held Sidhu guilty of causing hurt to the victim under IPC Section 323 for which he was fined Rs 1,000, but spared jail.
Earlier on January 23, 2007, the SC had passed an exceptional order by staying Sidhu’s conviction, enabling him to fight lS polls.
Reversing the order of conviction passed by Punjab & Haryana HC against him and his friend Rupinder Singh Sandhu, a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul acquitted the duo of the charge under IPC Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) for lack of corroborative evidence. The trial court had initially acquitted the duo of all charges on September.
It was a tough legal battle for Sidhu as the Congress Government in the State had supported his conviction. But the apex court examined the evidence and held that medical evidence was inconclusive that the cause of death was due to the fist blow by Sidhu or the cardiac condition of the deceased Gurnam Singh. Further, the pathology report did not specify any injury to the brain and neither any details about the volume of subdural hemorrhage was provided to concluded death as a result of the blow.
The bench said, “Such being the evidence on record, the conclusion of the High Court that Gurnam Singh’s death is caused by subdural haemorrhage but not cardiac arrest, in our opinion, is not based on any evidence on record and is a pure conjecture….To find a man guilty of culpable homicide, the basic fact required to be established is that the accused caused the death. But the medical evidence is absolutely uncertain regarding the cause of death of Gurnam Singh.”
What further weighed with the Court was the absence of intention. Neither any weapon was used nor did any past enmity exist. The dispute emanated from a brawl regarding right of way, which the Court described as “common sight” in the country.