Want to be a
Soolegal Member
Lawstreet Journal

Supreme Court is hearing the review petition against Navjot Singh Sidhu in a 33 year old road rage case

Lawstreet Journal 26 Mar 2022 2:55am

  •  Like
  •    0   Comment
  •     Share
  • 609

Image courtesy: Lawstreet Journal Judiciary Supreme Court is hearing the review petition against Navjot Singh Sidhu in a 33 year old road rage case

SupremeCourt is hearing the review petition against Navjot Singh Sidhu in a 33 year old road rage case

Sr Adv Siddharth Luthra takes the bench through the injuries sustained by victims

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul: We are in review here Mr Luthra. We cannot go through all these evidences and documents again.

Sr Adv Luthra: It was an injury, it was an ante mortem injury and that it was indeed caused by Navjyot Singh Sidhu. When we had argued this matter we had placed in record detailed written submissions

Luthra: Locus here cannot be an objection at all. When the notice was issued we were not there before this court. So there was no delay on our part.

Dr Abhisekh Manu Singhvi: it is a 34 year old incident of 1988. this court has many cases of suspension of sentence etc at high court stage from trial court but this is a case where a detailed reasoned judgment of SC has suspended conviction.

Justice AM Khanwilkar: Is it suspension of sentence or modification?

Singhvi: I am on the first judgment and it was suspension then

SC: How is it relevant today? we are o n judgment on appeal

Singhvi: there was no motive, personal enmity, he resigned and then he sought suspension of conviction. This case is 34 years old.

Justice Kaul: On the lighter side such kind of a battle is not unknown in Punjab

Justice Khanwilkar: Such a fight

Singhvi: Subdural haemorrhage by itself does not cause death and it was noted in earlier judgment. can the scope of notice… Continue Reading...

0 like 0 Comments  Share 609

Tagged: Navjot Singh Sidhu  
Disclaimer: SoOLEGAL in Media collaboration with Lawstreet Journal. SoOLEGAL take no responsbility for the content provided by Lawstreet Journal. For any discrepancies Contact Lawstreet Journal.
Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0