While sentencing former Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu to a one-year jail term in a 1988 road rage case, the Supreme Court noted that a 25-year-old international cricketer who is physically fit, is expected to know the impact of a blow inflicted by him.
The Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul also quoted the ancient Hindu text of Dharmashastra to explain the necessity of proportionate punishment in the case.
The Court thus held that a disproportionately light punishment humiliates and frustrates the victim of a crime when the offender goes unpunished or is let off with a relatively minor punishment.
The review petition before the Court was filed by the son of the victim who had passed away after a physical assault by Sidhu and others following a road rage incident in 1988. During the melee, Sidhu had allegedly inflicted a single physical blow on the head of the deceased, who was suffering from a heart ailment.
In May 2018, the apex court had set aside a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which held the former cricketer guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and modified his conviction to one under Section 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt). Consequently, the three-year jail sentence imposed by the High Court was changed to a mere fine of ₹1,000. Interestingly, the Bench that passed this order also comprised Justice Kaul.
The Supreme Court had in September 2018 admitted the review petition filed against the sentence awarded to Sidhu in the case.
While deciding the review petition, the Court addressed two aspects raised: expansion of the scope of review and enhancement of sentence.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the complainant, sought to persuade the Court to enlarge scope of the review as a whole and not limited to the question of sentence. Luthra argued that two previous judgments of the apex court on this aspect were not followed, and that that the delay of 34 years cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the delay was not attributable to the complainants or the victims.
The Court, however, was disinclined to enlarge the scope to something more than the aspect of sentencing. It held,
“It has been taken into account that only one blow with bare hands as inflicted by respondent No.1 had landed on the head of the deceased. The finding is that apparently in the fist fight, other blows may have been attempted but did not fall on the material part of the body. Aspects such as lack of post enmity, lack of any weapon used except bare hands and the result of a spontaneous fight over a right of way were also taken into account.
We, thus, unequivocally reject the argument for expanding the scope of the review application.”.
On enhancement of sentence
The question before the Court was whether in the given factual scenario, grave error was committed on the issue of sentence by not punishing Sidhu with imprisonment of any term whatsoever.
In the Court’s view some aspects that ought to have been considered while sentencing were not taken into account. These included:
Physical fitness of Sidhu 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.
Sidhu cannot say that he did not know the effect of the blow or plead ignorance on this aspect…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.
In the given circumstances, tempers may have been lost but then the consequences of the loss of temper must be borne.
The Court that in its May 2018, it had accepted the plea by Sidhu that he had only landed a single blow by hand on the head of the deceased. This, the Bench said, was an “error apparent on the face of the record needing some remedial action.”
In its judgment, the Court also gave pause to discuss the necessity of maintaining a reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment.
The Bench cited its previous judgments to state that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system and undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. The society can not long endure under serious threats and if the courts do not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance and, therefore, it is the duty of every court to award proper sentence, the Court reiterated.
It further noted that the principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence.
“No doubt there cannot be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. An offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court,” the top court clarified.
While discussing sentencing in a case where unintended consequences occur, the Court cited its judgment in Soman v. State of Kerala and said,
“Thus, 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…
…In that context it has been observed that 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.”
On these grounds, the Court imposed a one-year prison sentence on Sidhu.