The Supreme Court on Tuesday convicted Punjab Tourism Minister Navjot Singh Sidhu for voluntarily causing hurt to a 65-year-old man but spared him a jail term in the 1988 road rage case and imposed a Rs 1,000 fine on him.

The bench found Sidhu guilty of voluntarily causing hurt (under Section 323 of the IPC) but acquitted him of the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304. His co-accused Rupinder Singh Sandhu, te tourism minister in Punjab, was acquitted of all the charges.

A bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul was pronouncing judgment on an appeal filed by Sidhu against a December 2006 Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict convicting and sentencing him to three years in jail in a road rage case.

Besides Sidhu, the appeal was also filed by Sandhu, who was also given a three-year jail term by the high court. Sidhu and Sandhu were initially tried for murder but the trial court in September 1999 acquitted the duo.

The road rage incident dates back to December 27, 1988, when Sidhu had allegedly punched one 65-year-old Gurnam Singh in Punjab's Patiala, resulting in latter's death.

The sessions court acquitted Sidhu and Sandhu on September 22, 1999, due to lack of evidence.

The trial court had acquitted Sidhu, whereas the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed his acquittal, convicting him under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The victim's family had appealed to the Supreme Court that earlier imprisonment sentence of three years given by the Punjab and Haryana High Court should be enhanced. However, the Punjab government appealed to the apex court to uphold three-year imprisonment.&nbsp;

The road rage incident dates back to December 27, 1988, when Sidhu had allegedly punched one 65-year-old Gurnam Singh in Patiala, Punjab, resulting in the latter`s death.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday convicted Punjab Tourism Minister Navjot Singh Sidhu for voluntarily causing hurt to a 65-year-old man but spared him a jail term in the 1988 road rage case and imposed a Rs 1,000 fine on him. The bench found Sidhu guilty of voluntarily causing hurt (under Section 323 of the IPC) but acquitted him of the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304. His co-accused Rupinder Singh Sandhu, te tourism minister in Punjab, was acquitted of all the charges. A bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul was pronouncing judgment on an appeal filed by Sidhu against a December 2006 Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict convicting and sentencing him to three years in jail in a road rage case. Besides Sidhu, the appeal was also filed by Sandhu, who was also given a three-year jail term by the high court. Sidhu and Sandhu were initially tried for murder but the trial court in September 1999 acquitted the duo. The road rage incident dates back to December 27, 1988, when Sidhu had allegedly punched one 65-year-old Gurnam Singh in Punjab's Patiala, resulting in latter's death. The sessions court acquitted Sidhu and Sandhu on September 22, 1999, due to lack of evidence. The trial court had acquitted Sidhu, whereas the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed his acquittal, convicting him under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The victim's family had appealed to the Supreme Court that earlier imprisonment sentence of three years given by the Punjab and Haryana High Court should be enhanced. However, the Punjab government appealed to the apex court to uphold three-year imprisonment.

Navjot Singh Sidhu found guilty in 1988 road rage case, but spared jail term

New Delhi: The gruesome accident in Janakpuri area, in which two persons were killed by a drunk driver, was the second such case in the city this year in which the accused was slapped with a more stringent charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder instead of charge of causing death by negligence, which is bailable in nature. 
 
Earlier this year, in the Mercedes hit-and-run incident reported in north Delhi&#39;s Civil Lines area, the accused, who was four days short of 18 years on the day of the accident, was slapped with the same charge in the case which was initially registered under IPC Section 304 A (causing death by negligence). 
 
In todays incident, police claimed that they have adequate ground to register a case under IPC Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). 
 
&quot;In this case, the 21-year-old accused, who was in a highly inebriated state, was driving at a very high speed and did not stop his car after hitting the first person, who later died. 
 
&quot;He did not stop even after hitting two others and pulled over only after reaching a certain distance, chased by a patrol team, suggesting that the act was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to do so,&quot; Joint Commissioner of Police (southwest) Dependra Pathak said. 
 
IPC Section 304 is a more stringent charge as it is non bailable and punishable with imprisonment for life or for a term which can extend upto 10 years, apart from fine, unlike IPC Section 304 A which is bailable in nature and punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or both. 
 
However, in Janakpuri case, police have so far not come across any record of traffic violation against the accused, Rishabh, unlike the Mercedes case in which the 17-year-old boy was found involved in at least four cases in one year. 
 
But in the Mercedes hit-and-run matter, the minor, whose father was also booked for abetment to his crime, was not suspected to be driving under the influence of alcohol unlike todays incident. 
 
In that case, the relatives of the 32-year-old business consultant who died in the incident, met Delhi Police Commissioner Alok Kumar Verma, following which the investigating officer of the case was changed and the charge was altered from causing death by negligence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 
 
Two persons, including an elderly man, who were out for morning walk were killed and another was critically injured after they were knocked down by a speeding car being allegedly driven by a 21-year-old student in a highly inebriated state in Janakpuri area. (PTI)

The offence is non-bailable, unlike the charge used more often -- causing death by negligence

New Delhi: The gruesome accident in Janakpuri area, in which two persons were killed by a drunk driver, was the second such case in the city this year in which the accused was slapped with a more stringent charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder instead of charge of causing death by negligence, which is bailable in nature. Earlier this year, in the Mercedes hit-and-run incident reported in north Delhi's Civil Lines area, the accused, who was four days short of 18 years on the day of the accident, was slapped with the same charge in the case which was initially registered under IPC Section 304 A (causing death by negligence). In todays incident, police claimed that they have adequate ground to register a case under IPC Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). "In this case, the 21-year-old accused, who was in a highly inebriated state, was driving at a very high speed and did not stop his car after hitting the first person, who later died. "He did not stop even after hitting two others and pulled over only after reaching a certain distance, chased by a patrol team, suggesting that the act was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to do so," Joint Commissioner of Police (southwest) Dependra Pathak said. IPC Section 304 is a more stringent charge as it is non bailable and punishable with imprisonment for life or for a term which can extend upto 10 years, apart from fine, unlike IPC Section 304 A which is bailable in nature and punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or both. However, in Janakpuri case, police have so far not come across any record of traffic violation against the accused, Rishabh, unlike the Mercedes case in which the 17-year-old boy was found involved in at least four cases in one year. But in the Mercedes hit-and-run matter, the minor, whose father was also booked for abetment to his crime, was not suspected to be driving under the influence of alcohol unlike todays incident. In that case, the relatives of the 32-year-old business consultant who died in the incident, met Delhi Police Commissioner Alok Kumar Verma, following which the investigating officer of the case was changed and the charge was altered from causing death by negligence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Two persons, including an elderly man, who were out for morning walk were killed and another was critically injured after they were knocked down by a speeding car being allegedly driven by a 21-year-old student in a highly inebriated state in Janakpuri area. (PTI)

Drunk driver charged with cuplable homicide not amounting to murder

culpable-homicide

Culpable Homicide, News on Culpable Homicide, stories on Culpable Homicide, articles on Culpable Homicide, Culpable Homicide stories at Wion, Culpable Homicide news, Culpable Homicide latest news