Navjot Sidhu And 1988 Road Rage Case: A Timeline

Navjot Sidhu And 1988 Road Rage Case: A Timeline

In 2018, Punjab government soughtMr Sidhu’s conviction in the top court.

New Delhi:
Congress leader Navjot Sidhu was today sentenced to one-year rigorous imprisonment by the Supreme Court in a 1988 road rage case.

Here are the top 5 latest updates on this big story

  1. December 27, 1988: Navjot Sidhu and his friend Rupinder Singh Sandhu allegedly thrashed 65-year-old Gurnam Singh in Patiala, after he reportedly asked them to remove their Gypsy, which was parked in the middle of the road. Mr Singh was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. Subsequently, a case was filed.

  2. September 1999: Patiala District and Sessions court acquitted Mr Sidhu and Mr Sandhu of murder charges, citing a lack of evidence.

  3. 2002: Punjab government filed an appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High Court against their acquittal.

  4. December 2006: The high court reversed the verdict and held Mr Sidhu and Mr Sandhu guilty of culpable homicide (not amounting to murder). It had sentenced them to three years in jail and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh each on them. Following which, Mr Sidhu resigns as the BJP MP from Amritsar.

  5. January  2007: Mr Sidhu surrendered before a court, however, he was later granted bail in the same year.

  6. January 2007: Gurnam Singh’s family then approached the Supreme Court challenging the grant of bail to Mr Sidhu and Rajinder Sandhu.

  7. April 2018: Punjab government sought Mr Sidhu’s conviction in the top court.

  8. May 2018: The Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court order convicting Mr Sidhu of culpable homicide, but fined him Rs 1,000 for causing hurt to Gurnam Singh. 

  9. September 2018: The top court agreed to examine a review petition filed by the family members of Gurnam Singh.

  10. March 2022: In his response, Mr Sidhu told the top court that the plea seeking enlargement of the scope of notice in the matter relating to review of the sentence awarded to him was an “abuse of process”.

Assam Press