Navjot Singh Sidhu Will Go to Jail? Supreme Court Soon to Announce Verdict in 11-Year Long Pending Case
Navjot Singh Sidhu (Image Credits: Facebook Page)

New Delhi, May 15: The apex court will finally announce the verdict in the long-pending alleged death case, named prime accused Cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu and his friend Rupinder Singh Sandhu today. The verdict in the eleven years old brawl case which was stayed by the supreme court after both Sidhu and his friend rushed to the apex court pleading for justice will decide the fate of both. A bench comprising Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul will deliver its judgement on a cross-appeal filed by the victim’s family seeking enhancement of jail term to the accused. To recall, in the year 1988, Sidhu and his friend Rupinder Singh Sandhu got into a heated argument with deceased Gurnam Singh over parking space near the State Bank of Patiala office in Patiala. It was claimed that Sidhu and his friend thrashed the deceased by dragging him out oh his car, causing his death.

Though the Patiala sessions court gave a clean chit to Sidhu and Sandhu in the case. However, the acquittal verdict was later dismissed by the Haryana and Punjab High Court and awarded both with three years of jail imprisonment. Thereafter, both accused immediately knocked the doors of Supreme Court which stayed their conviction.

Now, after eleven years the apex court has started the hearing in the case, and today the much-awaited verdict in Sidhu and his friend will be announced by the division bench. According to a petition made by both, the accused has claimed that the deceased died due to heart attack and not due to the brawl. Therefore, they cannot be held guilty.

Meanwhile, the Congress-led Punjab government also raised strong objection against the stay and demanded that the apex court should uphold the conviction declared by the Punjab and Haryana HC. Earlier, the HC awarded three years imprisonment is claimed to be correct by the state Congress party leader.

The substantial evidence provided to the HC claimed that the deceased did not die due to cardiac arrest, but due to the injury on the temporal region - head.