news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses army jawans’ appeal involved in killing three officers | | |
JAMMU, JULY 16- Justice JP Singh of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Jammu wing, dismissed the appeal filed by Dhian Singh through his wife seeking quashment of General Court Martial of January 28, 1998 whereby the petitioner was convicted to undergo life imprisonment and dismissed from service.
The petitioner, having old history of suffering from “unspecified psychosis” was receiving treatment for his decease during his employment in the army. He had been charged in a murder and was responsible for firing and killing three army personnel, namely Subedar Nirmal Singh, Company Havildar Major Baldev Singh and Havildar Kaur Singh of his unit besides firing at Sepoy Harvinder Singh with an intention to kill him but the later over powered the petitioner. Thereafter summary General Court Martial Trial was started and the petitioner was awarded life imprisonment and against the said order filed an appeal which was rejected by the Chief of Army Staff on June 27, 2000. Against that order the petitioner filed present appeal.
Justice JP Singh, after hearing Adv Surinder Kour appearing for the petitioner and Mr. VK Magoo Assistant Solicitor General of India and perusing the case of the petitioner, observed that it is true that Court Martial Proceedings are subject to the judicial review by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is only when the Court Martial was not properly convened or there was any challenge to its composition and the proceedings on the basis of violation of the provisions of the Army Act and Army Rules, that the High Court may exercise its power of judicial review. The plea of the counsel of the petitioner that the conviction of the petitioner is against the evidence on record and the Court Martial had not properly appreciated the evidence cannot thus be taken note of. The summary GCM has sufficiently discharged its judicial functions and its proceedings indicate that due care and caution had been taken by the Court in adhering to the provisions of the Army Act and army rules on the subject. Its responsibility to protect the rights of the accused, charged before it, by providing all the procedural safe guards, has been properly discharged by it.
Justice JP Singh in approved for reporting judgment further observed that nothing substantial was argued by the counsel for the petitioner regarding the challenge made by the petitioner as to the rejection of his petition by the Chief of the Army staff. Perusal of the rejection order reveals that the same had been passed by competent authority after due application of mind. Court does not find any material on record to interfere with the order sought to be questioned by the petitioner in this petition. There is no merit in this petition and same is dismissed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
