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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the Petitioner was charged for having omitted to take control of the situation as a Platoon Commander. The offences for which he was charged are extracted below: “CHARGE SHEET The Accused, No. JC-266017X Subedar Jaibir Singh of 28 Rashtriya Rifles attached to 2 Field Ordnance Depot, is charged with:- First Charge Section 34(c) Army Act. Second Charge Section 63 Army Act In the presence of the enemy misbehaving in such manner as to show cowardice In that he, at field, on 31 st October 2006, while performing the duties of Platoon Commander of No. 11 Platoon, „D‟ Company of 28 Rashtriya Rifles, when No. 14435246F Gunner/Operator Suresh Chandra Behera of the same unit, shot at IC- 46825K Lt. Col. Saket Saxena, the Company Commander, „D‟ Company and continued firing indiscriminately, showed cowardice by hiding himself, despite having learnt that the Company Commander had been fired at. An omission prejudicial to good order and military discipline at field, on 31 st October 2006, while performing the duties of Platoon Commander of No. 11 Platoon, „D‟ Company of 28 Rashtriya Rifles, when No. 14435246F Gunner/Operator Suresh Chandra Behera of the same unit, shot at IC- 46825K Lt. Col. Saket Saxena, the Company Commander, „D‟ Company and continued firing indiscriminately, improperly omitted to take control of the situation as such Platoon TA No. 168 of 2010 [W.P.(C) No.9777 of 2009] Page 4 of 23
Commander. 6. The main contention of the Petitioner was that he had not displayed any cowardice and that there was ample evidence to prove that Gnr/Opr Suresh Chandra Behera after killing Lt. Col. Saket Saxena was supposedly searching for the Petitioner to kill him also. It has come on record in the evidence of various witnesses that Gnr/Opr Suresh Chandra Behera had time and again stated “Kahan Hai Jaibir? Kahan Hai Chamkila? Kahan Chup Gaya?” and by „Chamkila‟ he was referring to the Petitioner. It was also in evidence that Gnr/Opr Suresh Chandra Behera had searched all over the post to find the Petitioner with a view to kill him. In this regard, Petitioner submitted that Gnr/Opr Suresh Chandra Behera was specifically searching for him and that he had specific targets in mind, the first of which was Lt. Col. Saket Saxena after which he wished to kill the Petitioner. This was evident from the fact that after killing Lt. Col. Saket Saxena, Gnr/Opr Suresh Chandra Behera had not caused any further damage to anyone and had only searched for the Petitioner in order to kill him. In these circumstances, if the Petitioner had attempted to hide himself so as to save his life, it cannot be construed as cowardice. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also argued that the post contained almost 50 persons who were fully armed and capable of dealing with Gnr/Opr Suresh Chandra Behera after he ran amuck, and no action was taken by any of the other JCOs of the company and he alone had been punished. It was also argued that a sizeable number of the post personnel had just returned from Area Domination Patrol and were in the process of disarming themselves. It was for these persons who were available in the immediate vicinity of the incident, and who were still possessing their TA No. 168 of 2010 [W.P.(C) No.9777 of 2009] Page 5 of 23
Page 1 and 2: IN THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINC
Page 3: defending officer accordingly, with
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 and 18: proof jacket and holding a weapon,
Page 19 and 20: 19. Signalman Deepak Kumar (PW-7).
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?