Sidhu had on Tuesday told the top court that the findings of the Punjab and Haryana High court were based on ‘opinion’ and not on medical evidence. Sidhu had on Tuesday told the top court that the findings of the Punjab and Haryana High court were based on ‘opinion’ and not on medical evidence.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu’s appeal challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict which convicted and sentenced him to three years in jail in a 1988 road rage case. He was acquitted of murder charges by the trial court in September, 1999.

Asserting that the evidence brought on record regarding the cause of death of the victim were ‘indefinite and contradictory’, Senior advocate R S Cheema, appearing for Sidhu, said the medical opinion on Gurnam Singh’s death was ‘vague’.

A bench comprising Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul was hearing the case and it also reserved its verdict on the appeal filed by Rupinder Singh Sandhu, who along with Sidhu, was sentenced to three years in jail by the high court in the case.

Sidhu had on Tuesday told the top court that the findings of the Punjab and Haryana High court were based on ‘opinion’ and not on medical evidence. He also told the bench that there were ‘deficiencies’ in the medical evidence and the prosecution witnesses had given different statements on oath before the trial court. “There was “ambiguity” regarding the actual cause of death of Patiala resident Singh,” he had said. Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh had on April 12, however, favoured the high court’s verdict in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the family of the victim on Monday claimed they have been offered money and also threatened to withdraw their case. Narvedinder Singh, son of Satnam Singh, alleged, “All means, including threats and allurements, are being used and offered. We want to ask them if their money will get us our father? Will their money heal the wounds of my aged mother? It is surprising and astonishing to see heights of their insensitivity that not even once anyone has apologised rather we were insulted and he was rewarded with Cabinet berth and he used to browbeat us on national television. Does a person who can take precious life of an elderly person do justice to people of Punjab as their representative?”

The counsel for the state had earlier told the apex court: “The trial court verdict was rightly set aside by the High Court. Accused A1 (Navjot Singh Sidhu) had given fist blow to deceased Gurnam Singh leading to his death through brain hemorrhage.”

The state had argued that the trial court was wrong in its findings that the man had died of cardiac arrest and not brain hemorrhage. The counsel for the complainant had argued that Sidhu’s sentence should be enhanced as it was a case of murder and the cricketer-turned-politician had deliberately removed the keys of the deceased’s car so that he does not get medical assistance.

The high court had reversed the verdict and held Sidhu and co-accused Sandhu guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in December, 2006. It had sentenced them to three-year jail and imposed a fine of Rs one lakh each on the two.

(With PTI inputs)

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App.

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd