No. 9777 of 2009 Ex. Sube - Armed Forces Tribunal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

entire incident must have taken between 5 to 7 minutes and during the entire episode no other JCO except Sub Paramjit Singh had taken any action. 17. Hav Surinder Kumar (PW-5). This witness was also posted with No. 11 Platoon „D‟ Company of 28 Rashtriya Rifles Battalion on 31.10.2006. He was officiating as the Company Hav Maj on the date of the incident and has testified to the same facts as the other witnesses. He had been ordered by the petitioner to send the leave party to the vehicle site so that they could go to the Battalion HQ. At the same time, he heard a long burst of firing and thought that it was a Fidayeen Attack. He wore his bullet proof jacket and helmet and took his personal weapon and came to the Company HQ where he saw Gnr/Opr Behera standing near the volleyball ground and firing two rounds in the air when Sub Paramjit Singh was requesting him to handover his weapon. He has also stated that during the entire incident till Gnr/Opr Behera had been neutralized, no other JCO had taken any positive action to defuse the situation. It was only when Gnr/Opr Behera had been tied to a tree that the Petitioner made an appearance. 18. Gnr/Opr Suresh Chandra Behera, 28 Rashtriya Rifles Battalion (PW-6) was the next witness. His testimony revolves upon his action of killing the Company Commander, however, in his testimony he has at a few places mentioned that the petitioner used derogatory language against him and his family members and that he was mentally disturbed because of the attitude of Lt Col Saket Saxena and the Petitioner who used to taunt him. However, the witness has not been able to get any corroborative evidence about any of the occasions when the petitioner taunted him. TA No. 168 of 2010 [W.P.(C) No.9777 of 2009] Page 18 of 23
19. Signalman Deepak Kumar (PW-7). He was posted with „D‟ Company 28 Rashtriya Rifles Battalion on the day of the incident and was performing the duties of telephone exchange operator when Lt Col Saket Saxena was shot by Gnr/Opr Behera. He also heard the sound of firing and presumed it to be a Fidayeen Attack. Approximately 3 to 4 minutes after the firing, the witness received a telephone call from the Company Hav Maj Office asking him to call for an ambulance because the Company Commander had been shot by Gnr/Opr Behera. The witness passed this message to the unit and approximately 5 to 7 minutes thereafter the petitioner came to the telephone exchange. Petitioner appeared to be nervous and frightened and told the witness that “Gnr/Opr Suresh Chandra Behera ne Officer Commanding Sahib par goli mar di aur mere ko bhi dhoond raha hai”. After stating that petitioner stayed in the telephone exchange for another 2 to 3 minutes. The witness denied that the petitioner had asked him to pass any information to the Battalion HQ or that the Petitioner had given any other orders to him. In cross examination, this witness has again stated that he was unaware as to why petitioner came to the telephone exchange but he reiterated that he had not been asked to pass any information by the petitioner. The witness has also stated that the petitioner was not carrying any weapon and neither did he borrow any weapon from the witness. The witness has also stated that he and S/M Pawan Kumar both were present in the telephone exchange and that the petitioner had not given any orders to them. 20. Hav Purushottam Lal (PW-8). He was also posted to „D‟ Company 28 Rashtriya Rifles Battalion on the date of the incident and belongs to No. 10 Platoon. He had accompanied the Company Commander on the Area TA No. 168 of 2010 [W.P.(C) No.9777 of 2009] Page 19 of 23
Page 1 and 2: IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINC
Page 3 and 4: defending officer accordingly, with
Page 5 and 6: Commander. 6. The main contention o
Page 7 and 8: Col. Gagan Pathania, who would have
Page 9 and 10: same was accepted by the Court. The
Page 11 and 12: Paramjit Singh was senior of these
Page 13 and 14: 12. In this case the entire post wa
Page 15 and 16: witness ran behind him. Thereafter
Page 17: proof jacket and holding a weapon,
Page 21 and 22: volumes for what in actual fact the
Page 23: Saxena. In view of the evidence tha

No. 9777 of 2009 Ex. Sube - Armed Forces Tribunal

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?