{"id":262634,"date":"2022-03-25T17:04:38","date_gmt":"2022-03-25T11:34:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=262634"},"modified":"2022-03-25T19:07:01","modified_gmt":"2022-03-25T13:37:01","slug":"road-rage-case-supreme-court-reserves-order-in-review-plea-against-conviction-of-congress-leader-navjot-sidhu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/constitutional-law-news\/supreme-court-news\/road-rage-case-supreme-court-reserves-order-in-review-plea-against-conviction-of-congress-leader-navjot-sidhu\/","title":{"rendered":"Road Rage case: Supreme Court reserves order in review plea against conviction of Congress leader Navjot Sidhu"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The Supreme Court<\/a> on Friday reserved its verdict on a review petition against conviction of cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu in a road rage case, in which a man had died.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul reserved order on a petition filed by the family of deceased Gurnam Singh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The plea sought review of the Apex Court’s earlier order, wherein the Court had let off Sidhu with a fine of Rs 1,000 in the 33-year-old case. An intervention petition has also been filed in the Apex Court in the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the petitioners against Sidhu, began his arguments by reiterating his submissions made during the last hearing and submitted that the judgement in Brij Pal Singh Meena relies on Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab to come to a conclusion that if death is caused, the offences of hurt or injury will not be considered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He cited the following paragraph from the Virsa Judgement. “The prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under Section 300 IPC; <\/p>\n\n\n\n Also Read: <\/strong>Unitech promoter Sanjay Chandra\u2019s wife Preeti Chandra gets relief from Supreme Court<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n “First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present; Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended,” noted Luthra.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He said once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further. Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender. Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under s. 300, thirdly. It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real distinction between the two).<\/p>\n\n\n\n