While sending a very loud, strong and clear message to one and all that no one can be above the law, the Apex Court most recently on May 19, 2022 in a latest, learned and landmark judgment titled Jaswinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs Navjot Singh Sidhu and others in Review Petition (Crl.) No.477 of 2018 in CRL.A. No.60 of 2007 with Review Petition (Crl.) No.478/2018 in CRL.A. No.58/2007 Review Petition (Crl.) No.479/2018 in CRL.A. No.59/2007 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-05-2018 in Crl.A. No. No. 60/2007 passed by the Supreme Court of India) and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498 has enhanced the sentence of senior Congress leader and former Indian cricket team member Navjot Singh Sidhu to one year rigorous imprisonment in a 1988 spontaneous road rage accident in which a 65-year-old person named Gurnam Singh had died. The untoward incident actually occurred on December 27, 1988 at a traffic junction in Patiala when a dispute pertaining to the right way of vehicles led to altercation with Navjot Sidhu pulling out the deceased from his vehicle and assaulting him with fist blows in a fit of rage. Even Sidhu himself could not have believed that the person whom he beat would die as everything happened suddenly without any preparation or past enmity. This alone explains why the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice AM Khanwilkar rejected the plea for fastening culpable homicide not amounting to murder charge under Section 304A of the IPC. Very rightly so!
We know that Sidhu was earlier let off with a fine of Rs 1000 and the court spared him a jail term. In 2018, the top court had convicted Sidhu for the offence of “voluntarily causing hurt” but had acquitted him in connection with the culpable homicide charges as Sidhu had no intention to murder. But now the maximum possible sentence under Section 323 of the IPC has been awarded to the former Punjab Congress President and former Indian cricketer Navjot Singh Sidhu as the victim’s family filed a review petition before the top court while pressing for enhancement of punishment. Sidhu will now be taken into custody by Punjab police to serve out the sentence.
The key points of this judgment are as follows:
1. When a 25 year old man, who was an international cricketer, assaults a man more than twice his age and inflicts, even with his bare hands, a severe blow on his (victim’s) head, the unintended consequence of harm would still be properly attributable to him as it was reasonably foreseeable – The indulgence was not required to be shown at the stage of sentence by only imposing a sentence of fine and letting him go without any imposition of sentence.
2. The hand can also be a weapon by itself where say a boxer, a wrestler or a cricketer or an extremely physically fit person inflicts the same. This may be understood where a blow may be given either by a physically fit person or to a more aged person. (Para 24)
3. Even though any harm might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must be attached if the person suffers a grievous hurt or dies as a result thereof. (Para 32)
4. While a disproportionately severe sentence ought not to be passed, simultaneously it also does not clothe the law courts to award a sentence which would be manifestly inadequate, having due regard to the nature of the offence, since an inadequate sentence would fail to produce a deterrent effect on the society at large – A long period had lapsed by the time the appeal was decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which was disproportionate and inadequate. (Para 25 -32)
BACKGROUND
To start with, this notable judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul for a Bench of Apex Court comprising of himself and Justice AM Khanwilkar sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The original controversy emanates from an FIR dated 27.12.1988 under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) registered by the Sub-Inspector of P.S. Kotwali of Patiala District, Punjab on the basis of the information given by one Shri Jaswinder Singh (Informant) about an occurrence around 12:30 p.m. at the traffic light of Battian Wala Chowk. The Informant and one Avtar Singh (PW-3 and PW-4 respectively) were travelling with the deceased, Gurnam Singh in a Maruti Car driven by the deceased. Apparently, a dispute arose on the right of way between the accused and the deceased and respondent No.1 (the first accused) came out of his vehicle, pulled out the deceased from his vehicle and inflicted fist blows. As per the Informant his endeavour to intervene resulted even in the second accused (respondent No.2) (not mentioned in the FIR) getting out of the vehicle and giving fist blows to the Informant. It was alleged that the car keys of the deceased’s car were removed by the accused and they fled from the scene of occurrence. PW-3 and PW-4 took the deceased in a rickshaw to the hospital where the doctors announced that Gurnam Singh was dead.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that, “A post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Jatinder Kumar Sadana (PW-2), who recorded that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by a blunt weapon though he reserved his opinion on the cause of death as it could apparently be given only after receiving the report of the pathologist. The Pathologist’s report dated 09.01.1989 noticed a large number of abnormalities in the condition of the deceased’s heart and did not notice any pathology insofar as the brain is concerned. Even after the Pathologist’s report, PW-2 did not give a definite opinion regarding the cause of death of Gurnam Singh. Thereafter, PW-2 wrote to the Civil Surgeon, Patiala on 11.01.1989 requesting that the case be referred to Forensic Expert, Government Medical College, Patiala, as a result of which a Medical Board was constituted consisting of six members. Two of these members were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 but a very cryptic opinion was given by PW-1 with disinclination to give any further clarification when sought for by the prosecution.”
As it turned out, the Bench then enunciates in para 3 that, “A chargesheet dated 06.03.1989 was filed on 14.07.1989 under Section 304 of the IPC against respondent No.2, exonerating respondent No.1. During the course of trial, the Sessions Court exercised its powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) and after recording the statement of the Informant summoned respondent No.1 to stand trial. The Informant also filed a private complaint against both the accused for commission of offences under Sections 302/324/323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Both the cases were consolidated and on 20.08.1994 charges under Section 304 Part I were framed against both the accused arising from the FIR. While in the complaint, charges were framed under Section 302 of the IPC against respondent No.1 and under Section 302/34 of the IPC against respondent No.2. Charges under Section 323/34 of the IPC were framed against both the accused for causing hurt to the Informant.”
As we see, the Bench then states in para 4 that, “The trial court post trial acquitted both the accused vide judgment dated 22.09.1999. In terms of the judgment of the trial court, the death was not caused by subdural haemorrhage and the deceased suffered sudden cardiac arrest under stress because of which he fell and received two abrasions leading to subdural haemorrhage. The death was caused due to violence but it was not certain as to when precisely Gurnam Singh had died.”
Furthermore, the Bench then mentions in para 5 that, “The State and the complainant both moved the High Court vide separate appeals. The High Court in terms of the judgment dated 01.12.2006 opined that the cases of the two accused were to be considered separately. The High Court convicted respondent No.1 under Section 304 Part II of the IPC based on the testimony of the doctors, PW-1 and PW-2. As per their testimony, the cause of death was cardiac failure and all that they had stated was that the cardiac condition of the deceased was very weak. On the opening of the skull, subdural haemorrhage was present over the left parietal region and brain. It was the haemorrhage which caused the death of the deceased and not the cardiac arrest. Insofar as respondent No.2 is concerned, he was held guilty under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC as well as Section 323 of the IPC.”
Simply put, the Bench then states in para 6 that, “Three criminal appeals were filed before this Court by the two accused and the Informant.”
To be sure, the Bench then postulates in para 7 that, “The High Court judgment was analyzed by this Court, wherein it was opined that the testimony of the witnesses was trustworthy. Merely because there was a relationship between the Informant, Avatar Singh and the deceased, and more witnesses were not examined, could not have led to a conclusion that the case had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
Adding more to it, the Bench then mentions in para 8 that, “The post-mortem report was examined closely which indicated only two external injuries – one on the temporal region and another on the left knee of the deceased, and both were abrasions. The doctors had opined that the second injury could be the result of the fall and, thus, it is most unlikely that a person would simultaneously aim at the head and also the knees of the victim while giving fist blows. Respondent No.1 possibly delivered more than one fist blows while only one of them landed on the head of the deceased and others missed the target. This Court did not agree with the observations of the High Court that the death was caused by subdural haemorrhage and not cardiac arrest. There was stated to be uncertainty regarding the cause of death of Gurnam Singh and no weapon had been used, nor was there any past enmity between the parties, and what happened was the result of an instant brawl.”
Still adding more, the Bench then notes in para 9 that, “The case against respondent No.2 was held not to have been proved and mere presence of respondent No.2 with respondent No.1 was not sufficient to result in a conviction based on common intention. Even for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, respondent No.2 was held not guilty.”
In hindsight, the Bench then recalls in para 10 that, “The Court recognized that there were lapses in investigation but then people are not convicted on the basis of doubts. Respondent No.1 was held not guilty of causing the death of Gurnam Singh, and the only conclusion which was found acceptable was of the respondent No.1 causing voluntary hurt to Gurnam Singh which is punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. It was noticed that respondent No.1 was an international cricketer and a celebrity at the time of the incident and at times there was an endeavour to turn a blind eye to the violations of law committed by celebrities. On the question of sentence, a fine of Rs.1,000/- alone was imposed vide order dated 06.12.2006, since the incident was 30 years old at the time, there was no enmity between the parties and no weapon was used.”
It deserves mentioning that the Bench after hearing both sides then observes in para 24 that, “We have given our thought to the matter. In our view, some material aspects which were required to be taken note of appear to have been somehow missed out at the stage of sentencing, such as the physical fitness of respondent No.1 as he was an international cricketer, who was tall and well built and aware of the force of a blow that even his hand would carry. The blow was not inflicted on a person identically physically placed but a 65 year old person, more than double his age. Respondent No.1 cannot say that he did not know the effect of the blow or plead ignorance on this aspect. It is not as if someone has to remind him of the extent of the injury which could be caused by a blow inflicted by him. In the given circumstances, tempers may have been lost but then the consequences of the loss of temper must be borne. In fact, this Court to some extent had been indulgent in ultimately holding respondent No.1 guilty of an offence of simple hurt under Section 323 of the IPC. The question is whether even on sentence, mere passage of time can result in a fine of Rs.1,000/- being an adequate sentence where a person has lost his life by reason of the severity of blow inflicted by respondent No.1 with his hands. The hand can also be a weapon by itself where say a boxer, a wrestler or a cricketer or an extremely physically fit person inflicts the same. This may be understood where a blow may be given either by a physically fit person or to a more aged person. Insofar as the injury caused is concerned, this Court has accepted the plea of a single blow by hand being given on the head of the deceased. In our view, it is this significance which is an error apparent on the face of the record needing some remedial action.”
While mentioning relevant US Apex Court judgments, the Bench then states in para 34 that, “The US Supreme Court has also moved in the same direction in Payne v. Tennessee 501 US 808 (1991) while examining the aspect of the “victim impact statement” in a case of capital offence at the time of sentencing. The court considered the aspect from the dissenting judgment in the case of Booth v. Maryland 482 U.S. 496 (1987) which emphasized on “reminding the sentencer that just as the murderer should be considered as an individual, so too the victim is an individual whose death represents a unique loss to society and in particular to his family.” The words of Justice Benjamin Cardozo in Snyder v. Massachusetts 291 US 97 (1934) bring out that “justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser also. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance true.””
To put it differently, the Bench then observes quite forthrightly in para 35 that, “Thus, a disproportionately light punishment humiliates and frustrates a victim of crime when the offender goes unpunished or is let off with a relatively minor punishment as the system pays no attention to the injured’s feelings. Indifference to the rights of the victim of crime is fast eroding the faith of the society in general and the victim of crime in particular in the criminal justice system. (Shri P. Babulu Reddy Foundation Lecture, Victims of Crime – The Unseen Side by Dr. Justice A.S. Anand, Judge, Supreme Court of India (as he then was) (1998) 1 SCC (Jour) 3. Delivered at Hyderabad on 28th September 1997.).”
For clarity, the Bench then stipulates in para 36 that, “We noticed the aforesaid judgments to repel the contention of learned senior counsel for the respondent that the victim should have no say in the matter of enhancement of sentence.”
It is worth noting that the Bench then clearly states in para 38 that, “We are not setting forth much about how the investigation proceeded initially, how the court had to intervene to see that the relevant people are charged, the manner of leading of evidence, the hesitancy of doctors all of which weighed in this Court opining that a case beyond reasonable doubt could be only of one under Section 323 of the IPC. We do believe that the indulgence was not required to be shown at the stage of sentence by only imposing a sentence of fine and letting the respondent go without any imposition of sentence.”
Quite significantly, the Bench then holds in para 39 that, “The present case is not one where two views are possible such that review should not be exercised. It is a case where some germane facts for sentencing appear to have been lost sight of while imposing only a fine on respondent No.1 and, therefore, no question of choosing between two possible views arises.”
CONCLUSION
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then concludes by directing in para 40 that, “The result of the aforesaid is that the review applications/petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent and in addition to the fine imposed we consider it appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment to be undergone by respondent No.1. The parties are left to bear their own costs.”
In essence, the Apex Court has made it indubitably clear that there is merit in the review petition of victim’s family. We thus see that the punishment for Sidhu is enhanced from just Rs 1000 fine to one year rigorous imprisonment in jail. It is really a fine gesture on the part of Navjot Singh Sidhu to humbly accept the Supreme Court verdict without any ifs and buts and he tweeted saying clearly that, “Will submit to the majesty of law…” No denying it!
“The High Court judgment was analyzed by this Court, wherein it was opined that the testimony of the witnesses was trustworthy. Merely because there was a relationship between the Informant, Avatar Singh and the deceased, and more witnesses were not examined, could not have led to a conclusion that the case had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
