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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Advocate of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court as his private defence counsel. The defending officer requested for an adjournment for 30 minutes which was granted. On reassembling, the defending officer informed the Court that the Petitioner had had a telephonic conversation with Brig. R.P. Singh (Retd.) and that he had no objection to be tried by the Presiding Officer or any other Member of the Court. Thereafter the Petitioner was asked whether he wished to apply for an adjournment on the ground that he did not have sufficient opportunity for preparing his defence, to which the Petitioner had categorically stated “No”. At this time the defending officer submitted that the proceedings of the Court were being conducted in a language the Petitioner does not understand and hence an Interpreter be appointed. Accordingly, the Court allowed the submission of the defending officer to appoint an Interpreter Lt. Col. Ranjeet Chacko, one of the Members of the Court, was sworn as an Interpreter. Immediately thereafter the defending officer requested for an adjournment till 1100 hours on 15 th March 2007 to enable the defence counsel, Brig. R.P. Singh (Retd.) to be present. The Court accepted this submission and adjourned till 1100 hours on 15 th March 2007 by which time the defence counsel, Brig. R.P. Singh (Retd.) had joined. The first action that was taken on 15 th March 2007 was to appoint Lt. Col. Suresh Kumar as Interpreter. Therefore, Lt. Col. Ranjeet Chacko, who was a Member of the Court had not transacted any proceedings as an Interpreter, therefore, there was no question of any illegality. The complete proceedings of the SGCM were undertaken with Lt.Col.Suresh Kumar as Interpreter. Furthermore, when the Court commenced at 1100 hours on 15 th March 2007, Brig. R.P.Singh (Retd.) the defence counsel was present and sought time till 1500 hours to examine the proceedings and prepare his submissions and the TA No. 168 of 2010 [W.P.(C) No.9777 of 2009] Page 8 of 23
same was accepted by the Court. The time given to the defence counsel to inspect the proceedings was approximately 4 hours and not 5 minutes as stated by the Petitioner. Therefore, in the entire proceedings no illegality has been committed and neither had the Petitioner been deprived of his legal rights or the services of his defence counsel. However, since the Petitioner after telephonic consultation with his defence counsel, had already stated that he had no objection to be tried by the Presiding Officer or any other Member of the Court and that there was no objection to the charge to which the Petitioner had pleaded „Not Guilty‟ the subsequent objection raised by his defence counsel to these issues could not be accepted and was overruled by the Court. All in all there had been no violation of any legal rights which were available to the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Respondents also pointed out that when the SGCM proceedings were sent to the confirming authority, he had remitted the unexpired portion of the sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Court. Consequently, the Petitioner was not sent to civil jail to serve out his sentence and his imprisonment was restricted to the custody prior, during and after the SGCM. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondents further argued that primarily the Court had to satisfy itself that when Gnr/Opr Suresh Chandra Behera killed Lt. Col. Saxena and continued firing indiscriminately, did the Petitioner hide himself despite having learnt that the Company Commander had been shot and injured/killed. The issue before the Court Martial was that when the Petitioner got to know that his senior officer, Lt. Col. Saket Saxena, had been shot and injured/killed by Gnr/Opr Suresh Chandra Behera, did he hide himself or take any positive action to control the situation. TA No. 168 of 2010 [W.P.(C) No.9777 of 2009] Page 9 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: Col. Gagan Pathania, who would have
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?