BALEINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while posted as a Sepoy Driver MT at Central Ammuniation Depot (for short 'CAD'), Pulgaon was charged for offence under Section 69 of the Army Act in having committed Civil Offence, namely, murder contrary to Section 302 of Indian Penal Code on 10.1.1990 by causing death of L/Nk Driver P.K. Chaudhary and that of Sepoy Driver Siva Prasad and attempt to murder, contrary to Section 307 Indian Penal Code, at Pulgaon Camp on 10.1.1990 by running over squad of unit persons by driving one Ton Army vehicle with intent to murder them resulting in injury to fourteen individual Sepoy Drivers.

(2.) On a trial by General Court Martial the petitioner was convicted on 4.10.1990 and was sentenced to suffer death by being hanged by neck until dead. The findings of "guilty" and sentence "to suffer death by being hanged by the neck until he be dead" was duly confirmed on 24.4.1992 by the Central Government. The petitioner's statutory petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act was also dismissed by the Central Government on 7.9.1994. Feeling aggrieved this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was preferred on 12.12.1994 seeking writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of conviction and sentence passed by the General Court Martial on 4.10.1990, the order of confirmation passed on 24.4.1992 by the Central Government and the order dated 7.9.1994 rejecting petitioner's representation under Section 164(2) of the Army Act.

(3.) The facts in brief are that while posted at CAD, Pulgaon Camp, the petitioner on completing his duties of driving the School Bus on 10.1.1990 returned to MT Park around 3.30 P.M. and at 3.40 P.M. he was detailed to go to Officers' Mess to take Capt. V.P. Bharati to ISO Office. After carrying out his duty and leaving Captain B.P.Bharati at ISO Office the petitioner returned to MT Park at about 4.20 P.M. As a matter of routine, MT Drivers of IT Section, CAD, Pulgaon Camp, used to fall in, in a squad, at about 4.30 P.M. on working days for briefing by the JCO, MT Park. The place for fall in was an earmarked one being open in front of URO Garages in IT Section. On 10.1.1990, after the whistle was blown for call in, the drivers formed themselves into a squad at the earmarked place at about 4.30 P.M. Briefing had not yet commenced. The drivers in the squad were standing casually and their attention and the sight were in different directions. Before the fall in, the petitioner had returned to IT Section, after leaving Capt. V.B. Bharati at ISO Office. On arrival he reported to IT Gate JCO Nb.Sub.B.S. Rana at 4.20 P.M. As per the instructions and the practice, the petitioner should have parked the vehicle in the garage by taking it through the specified route and after depositing the Car Diary with the detailing NCO he should have joined the other drivers in the squad for briefing. It was alleged that he had ample time to join the squad but did not join the squad. The petitioner brought the vehicle near MT Store Building. Waited for the drivers to form into a proper squad. He slowly drove the vehicle on the road leading from MT Park Building to URO Garages by getting nearer to the squad. Briefing of the squad by MT Park JCO had not yet commenced. The attention of drivers was still divided. No one suspected the accused because at times vehicles from this direction and route also could be taken on 'out' route. The petitioner drove the vehicle slowly till he was only about 8-10 metres away from the squad. All of a sudden in a surprise move the petitioner turned the vehicle in the direction of the squad, gave full throttle to the vehicle, ran over the drivers in the squad. No effort was made by the petitioner to give a warning by sounding the horn. No effort was made to save the squad by steering the vehicle towards the open space or by applying the brakes. The squad was run over. Some of the drivers were dragged along with the vehicle and some were thrown at a considerable distance. The vehicle thereafter was slowed down approximate at a distance of about 25 metres. The petitioner got down from the moving vehicle and looked back at the casualties with a smiling face and then cross over to the other side of the fence. The vehicle came to halt of its own after hitting a water tank.