1988 road rage case : Sidhu sentenced to one year in prison

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday imposed a one-year sentence on cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu in a 1988 road rage case.

A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and S K Kaul allowed the review plea filed by the victim's family on the issue of the sentence awarded to Sidhu.

Soon after the verdict, Sidhu tweeted, "Will submit to the majesty of law …"

Though the apex court had in May 2018 held Sidhu guilty of the offence of "voluntarily causing hurt" to a 65-year-old man in the case, it spared him a jail term and imposed a fine of Rs 1,000.

"..we feel there is an error apparent on the face of record .therefore, we have allowed the review application on the issue of sentence. In addition to the fine imposed, we consider it appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year, the bench said while pronouncing the verdict.

In September 2018, the apex court had agreed to examine a review petition filed by the family members of the deceased and had issued the notice, restricted to the quantum of sentence.

According to the prosecution, Sidhu and Sandhu were in a Gypsy parked in the middle of a road near the Sheranwala Gate Crossing in Patiala on December 27, 1988, when the victim and two others were on their way to the bank to withdraw money.

When they reached the crossing, it was alleged, that Gurnam Singh, driving a Maruti car, found the Gypsy in the middle of the road and asked the occupants, Sidhu and Sandhu, to remove it. This led to heated exchanges.

Sidhu was acquitted of murder charges by the trial court in September 1999.

However, the high court reversed the verdict and held Sidhu and Sandhu guilty under section 304 (II) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC in December 2006.

It had sentenced them to three years in jail and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh each on them.

The top court had earlier asked Sidhu to file his response on the application which had said that his conviction in the case should not have been merely for the lesser offence of voluntarily causing hurt.

Sidhu had on March 25 told the top court that the plea seeking enlargement of the scope of notice in the matter relating to review of the sentence awarded to him was an abuse of process.