JHUNTA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed on 16th March, 1994 in Civil Rule No. 351/89 by a learned Single Judge of this court. Heard Mr. T.C. Khetri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the appellant Jhunta Ram was serving as a Gunner and was tried by the Court Martial for commission of murder of a fellow Jawan, namely, Lance Nayak Vishnu Dayal. The appellant was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the General Court Martial. The appeal preferred under Section 164(i)/165 of the Army Act was dismissed whereupon the petitioner approached this court in Civil Rule No. 351/89.The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as devoid of any merit. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case there was non-compliance of the provision of Rule 22 of the Army Rules and the two persons, namely, the appellant and one Satya Vir Singh were charged for the offence of murder of Lnk Vishnu Dayalbut they were prosecuted separately and this has caused prejudice to the appellant. The records of the Court martial have been produced before us by the learned counsel for the Union of India and on perusal of the same, we find that there was full compliance of the provisions of Rule 22 as the investigations were held. As a matter of fact the appellant participated in the said proceeding and examined defence witnesses, Brig. N. Ram and Lt. Col. R.U. Misra. One Court witness Bhim Singh was also examined and thereafter charge was read over to the accused. The objection raised regarding the General Jurisdiction of the Court Martial was also disposed. So far holding of separate trial for the appellant and Satya Vir Singh is concerned, there is no provision under the Army Act or the Rules that both the persons should be tried together. Rule 35 is an enabling provision where more than one accused can be tried together. Further Satya Vir Singh was tried for the offence under Section 201 IPC although initially he was also charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC but later on the said charge was withdrawn. In the entire court martial the appellant was defended by Advocates and there is no question of any prejudice to him.