SHINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed to seek the following reliefs:

(2.) FROM the averments made in this writ petition, it appears that the Petitioner was enrolled in Army on 11th December, 1980 and after a service of more than 18 years, in August, 1996, during his posting with 10 Sikh Regiment of Infantry, he was sent for a field firing exercise on attachment to 6 Armoured Regiment. Thus, for the period of firing exercise, the Petitioner was placed under the Commanding Officer of 6 Armoured Regiment. During course of that exercise, the Petitioner and four other army personnel was directed to move with 6 Armoured Regiment. Other four army personnel who moved with the Petitioner, were Naib Subedar Manjit Singh, Hav. Hardayal Singh, Sepoy Ram Partap and Sepoy Balwinder Singh. While moving for the exercise destination, they reached near a Railway Station known as Bari Brahmana where they camped for night stay on 13th August, 1996. Tents of other units of 6 Armoured Regiment were also pitched side by side in close vicinity. All five companions of the Petitioner had a stay together in the same tent and during that night, they also consumed liquor in heavy quantity. This is also alleged that they picked up quarrel over consumption of liquor and after they were asleep, in the morning of 14th August, 1996, two out of 5 occupants of the tent of Petitioner, namely Naib Subedar Manjit Singh and Hav. Hardayal Singh were found dead with multiple injuries. Having learnt about this incident in the morning, their official Superiors in Army were immediately informed, who rushed to the spot. Civil police of that place was also informed about this incident. After civil police and military police reached the spot, rest other three army personnel who also occupied that tent, namely Sepoy Ram Partap, Sepoy Balwinder Singh and Naik Shinder Singh (Petitioner herein), were taken in custody, and during the pre -trial inquiry of this case, the Petitioner suffered a confessional statement. That apart, statement of Sepoy Ram Partap, who turned to be an approver in this case, was also found to contain a lot of incriminating informations against the Petitioner. After pre -trial investigation of this case was over, accused Petitioner Naik Shinder Singh was read over the charges under Section 69 of the Army Act and 302 of Ranbir Penal Code by Commanding Officer of 10 Sikh Regiment, his parent Army Organization, and tried upon the aforesaid charges by way of a Summary General Court Martial. On conclusion of that trial, the Petitioner was found to be guilty of offences charged with for having committed murder of two fellow army personnel. Consequently, he was visited with a sentence of life imprisonment on both counts, apart from reduction in rank from Naik to Sepoy with an order of dismissal from service. In this background, Petitioner Shinder Singh has filed the instant writ petition to seek the aforesaid reliefs. During the pendency of this writ petition, a learned Single Judge of this Court released the Petitioner on bail by suspending his sentence towards one of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. That order of bail seems to have been challenged by way of Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court which is pending to await disposal of this writ petition.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this is not a case of that kind which would necessitate invoking of the provisions of Section 112 of Army Act for holding the trial of accused Petitioner by way of Summary General Court Martial. Provisions of Section 112 of the Army Act, on reproduction, read as under: