Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu has been sentenced to one year imprisonment by the Supreme Court in a road rage case. This case is from 1988. In this regard, the Supreme Court had earlier imposed a fine of one thousand rupees on Sidhu. However, the victim’s family was not satisfied with this and filed a review petition in the Supreme Court. In the year 2018, the Supreme Court found Sidhu guilty in this case but released him after paying a fine of only one thousand.
According to the prosecution, Sidhu and Rupinder Singh Sandhu were sitting in a gypsy parked on the beach road near Sheranwala Gate in Patiala. Then 65-year-old Gurnam Singh and two others reached there. Gurnam Singh was driving the car. He asked Sidhu to remove the car. After this a debate ensued. In this case, the Supreme Court bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice SK Kaul delivered a 24-page judgment.
The bench said, anger can come to anyone but then one should also be prepared to bear the consequences of anger. When someone dies due to injury, the punishment should not be reduced, apart from this the trial should not be delayed either. The court said that the person who died was also 65 years old, at that time Sidhu would have been half his age.
The court said, “When a 25-year-old international cricketer strikes a person twice his age with an empty hand, he may injure his head.” In such a situation, many unwanted losses can also happen. The hand itself can act as a weapon in itself. It can be seen in this case that the victim was helpless and insecure.
The Supreme Court bench said that it was not right to leave Sidhu without any punishment by merely imposing a fine. He should not have shown mercy. The victim is disappointed when he gets a mild punishment. Attention should be paid to the person who is injured or else he will lose faith in the justice system.
Court cited Sanskrit shloka
The court referred to a Sanskrit verse and said, “Ancient scriptures say that the sinner should be punished according to his age, time and physical capacity.” The punishment should not be such that he should die, but the punishment should be such as to purify his thoughts. Punishment that endangers the life of the offender is not justified.
what is that verse
Yatvayo yathkaalam yath pranam cha brahmin.
Prayashchitam Pradatvyam Brahmanairdha Pathakai.
Yen suddhimvaproti na cha pranarvijute.
Aarti wa mahati yati na chaitad vratmahadish.