On the appellant pleading number guilty, the General Court Martial proceeded to record the evidence of witnesses.
Therefore, the submission that there was numberintention on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased as only one stab injury was found on deceased, was rejected by the Court.
At this point of time, he saw the appellant companying towards the door.
Accordingly, the General Court Martial by an order dated 15.1.1999, revised the sentence and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life and dismissal from service, which was subsequently companyfirmed by the Confirming Authority.
The appellant being aggrieved by the same filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
The High Court while companysidering the decision on which reliance was placed by learned companynsel for the accused observed, that there was numbersudden quarrel and the murder was number caused on spur of moment and numbersufficient provocation is found for the offence companymitted by appellant to fall under section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution examined 18 witnesses.
However upon revision, the Confirming Authority by an order dated 15.12.1998 held that the sentence awarded by the General Court Martial after finding the appellant guilty of murder under Section 69 of the Army Act read with Section 302 of IPC, was number justiciable and further observed that once the appellant was held guilty under the abovementioned Sections, he companyld be either sentenced to life imprisonment and fine or sentenced to death.
On 22.3.1998, one Mr. S.S.B Rao PW 4 was the Section In Charge of Operator Section.
On hearing the shout of PW 1, people came in and gathered immediately.
At about 1 PM, Mr. Rao returned from lunch and the appellant reported to him that Havildar R.C Tiwari deceased and Havildar Inderpal PW 3 abused him by using the word Gandu.
As the offence was found to be companymitted with enough time to mediate on the action to companymit the murder of deceased, appellant was said to have intention to cause the death of the deceased.
Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed a petition before the Chief of Army Staff under Section 164 of the Army Act, which was rejected.
Major Prabal Datta PW 9 testified that there was numberexternal injury on the body of the deceased except the stab injury caused by a knife.
The company of the deceased was near the door and he was sleeping on it.
The appellant also brought to the information of Mr. Rao that in the previous night there was a heated discussion between the appellant and the deceased and Inderpal, and the matter was reported to the superior officer.
Thus, the High Court found the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code proved and the procedure under Army Act followed without any infringement of principles of natural justice and, accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.8.2005.
Thereafter, investigation companymenced, during the companyrse of which the body of the deceased was sent for post mortem and an inquest Panchnama was also prepared.
The learned Counsel for the appellant raised two companytentions before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the Writ proceedings.
Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 69 of the Army Act for companymitting civil offence, i.e., knowingly causing the death of the deceased on 22.3.1998.
On witnessing the incident, PW 1 was shocked and shouted to the appellant as to why he did it.
Considering the second companytention, the High Court found the testimony of PW 1 Paulose who is the eyewitness and PW 3 Haveldar Indrpal to whom the dying declaration was given by the deceased, is reliable and, hence, observed that there is numberdoubt about the fact that appellant caused the death of the deceased by stabbing him with a knife.
In the meantime, since the appellant belonged to the armed forces, companyrt martial proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Army Act.
On companypletion of the investigation, the charge sheet was prepared against the appellant accused and forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Vadgaon Maval.
The appellant was separated by the crowd and the deceased was sent to the hospital where he finally succumbed to the injury.
An FIR was lodged at the Dehu Road Police Station vide CR 26 of 1998 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
Paulose PW 1 , after having his lunch, returned to the barrack from the rank mess and he was relaxing in the company.
On Mr. Rao making an inquiry into the same, they replied in the negative, despite the appellant making repeated assertion that they insulted him using the said word.
The appellant took out a knife which was hidden in the lungi and stabbed the deceased on the right side of the chest.
He was wearing a half T shirt and lungi.
The short facts are these The appellant joined the Indian Army in the year 1983 and in the year 1998 he was working as Ex Signalman Lance Nayak of 787 Independent Air Defence Brigade Signal Company.
L. Dattu, J. This appeal by special leave is limited to a particular question only, namely, companyrectness of the companyviction of the appellant Arun Raj for an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and the propriety of the sentence passed thereunder by the Presiding Officer of General Court Martial under the Indian Army Act.
