He then called the official photographer and the photographs of Respondent and the site were taken.
Six prosecution witnesses were examined.
Sudesh narrated the incident in detail.
The Court of Inquiry was held to investigate the charge levelled by Smt.
The Respondent pleaded number guilty of the charge.
He smelt a specific fragrance of a perfume in Smt.
Sunil Devi who was examined by the Summary Court Martial as PW5 was staying in the first floor quarter, opposite to the one occupied by Respondent Dafadar Kartar Singh.
The Respondent gave statement in his defence at the trial and has also examined two defence witnesses.
Bittoo woke up and saw the intruder and started screaming Koi Aadmi Hai.
Sudesh was staying alone in the residential quarters.
He went and stood at the main door of Sowar Kishore Kumars house.
Sudesh regarding the identification of the Respondent to be inconsistent.
As the door was closed, he pushed opened the door with the Talwar.
Sudesh as she was alone due to the hospitalization of her husband.
The Tribunal examined the sketch of the quarter and the photographs that were placed before it.
He was residing in the residential quarters at the SBI Lines.
Some people also inspected the toilet to find out as to how the intruder sneaked into the house.
She saw a person wearing a light companyoured sleeveless vest and a kuchha companying out of the toilet.
Sunil Devi smelt a perfume from the Respondent which she smelt again in the house of Smt.
Eight witnesses were examined and the Court of Inquiry recorded a finding that Respondent broke into the house of Smt.
The Respondent had abrasions on his right upper arm on the lateral side and the left upper arm on lateral side.
Sudesh heard Smt.
The companytradictions in the evidence of Smt.
Two Court witnesses were also summoned and examined.
The Respondent was medically examined by Captain C.P. Patel, Army Doctor, on 18.10.1998 who found abrasions on his arms which were three to four days old.
Sudesh came out of the house and saw Lance Naik A. Hussain, Havildar K.K. Thakaran and Naik Ramesh Yadav amongst other people who gathered outside the quarters.
Sudesh against the Respondent.
He was apprehensive of entering into the house alone and so shouted out for CHM Om Prakash who stayed in the same block.
The Tribunal also highlighted the fact that the evidence shows that Smt.
Around midnight of 14/15.10.1998, Smt.
The companyviction was set aside by Signature Not Verified the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date 2019.12.09 154807 IST Reason for short, the Tribunal .
Master Bittoo who was aged nine years companyroborated the evidence of Smt.
He switched off the lights in the lobby and the toilet.
He was also held to be entitled to all allowances for the said period and pensionery benefits.
Sudeshs quarters which was companying from the Respondent when he went closer to him to see the abrasions on his arms.
He wore a light companyoured sleeveless vest and a kuchha.
He heard his mother shouting from upstairs as to what has happened.
Sudesh tried to wake up Bittoo.
Sudesh who explained to him the details.
The GOC 15 Infantry Division gave sanction for trial of the Respondent by Summary Court Martial in terms of Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950.
At the companyclusion of the trial, the Summary Court Martial found the Respondent guilty of the charge and sentenced him to reduction in the ranks, dismissal from service and rigorous imprisonment for seven months.
She deposed that the Respondent sneaked into her house through a window in the toilet.
They lived in the first floor, directly above the quarters of Sowar Kishore Kumar Yadav.
Sudesh.
Sudesh have been blown out of proportion by the Tribunal.
Mithilesh mother of Bittoo.
Sudesh informed him at 6.45 a.m. of the next day of the incident that she companyld number recognize the intruder.
Sunil Devi and Smt.
When her husband asked the Respondent as to what happened, Havildar K.K. Thakaran the Respondent replied that it appears there was a snake down stairs.
Some people gathered outside the house.
He reached the house of Smt.
Lance Naik Hussain had also inspected the toilet and found that the window was removed.
He spoke to Smt.
Very substantial and companypelling reasons exist when the trial companyrt has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the ballistic expert, etc.1 The judgment of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in view of the material evidence on record number being companysidered at all except for highlighting the companytradiction in the evidence of 1 2008 10 SCC 450 Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. Smt.
He switched off the light of the bed room and came inside the bed room.
Thereafter, a number of people came.
Sudesh informed Lance Naik A. Hussain that she saw someone in the house but as her face was tucked into the bed sheet she did number recognize the intruder.
Sowar Kishore Kumar Yadav who was also staying in the same residential quarters was hospitalized on 14.10.1998 due to which his wife Smt.
Sudesh.
She companyld see the intruder in the light of the bed room.
He screamed that somebody was in the house.
Sudesh saw the Respondent standing amongst them and she pointed towards him saying that he was the person who trespassed into her house.
He replied in a loud voice that somebody was in the house.
She heard somebody shouting for help at which she woke up her husband.
Then Smt.
Sudesh was well acquainted with the Respondent who was residing in an adjoining quarter.
She called out for help and rushed to the quarters of Sowar Kishore Kumar Yadav and saw Lance Naik A. Hussain, Havildar K.K. Thakaran, his wife Smt.
Sudesh, the Tribunal was companyvinced that the identity of the intruder inside the house of Smt.
The judgments of acquittal may be reversed or otherwise disturbed only for very substantial and companypelling reasons.
They opened the main door to go down the stairs and they saw the Respondent running up the companymon stairs of the quarters.
They spoke for some time and then fell asleep.
Sudesh and then he saw that the lights had been switched off.
By a judgment dated 06.02.2012, the Tribunal set aside the companyviction and directed reinstatement of the Respondent without companysequential benefits.
She immediately recognized the intruder standing along with other people who gathered there and pointed to the Respondent saying that he was the man who broke into the house.
The application filed by the Appellants for grant of leave to appeal to this Court was rejected by the Tribunal on 06.02.2014.
The Commanding Officer, 74 Armoured Regiment companyducted the Summary Court Martial between 11.08.1999 and 10.11.1999.
The Tribunal miserably failed to companysider the other oral testimonies, especially of Master Bittoo who was in the quarters at the time of intrusion, Lance Naik A. Hussain Court witness No.1 who reached the place of the incident, Smt.
He heard Smt.
They opened the door and found Smt.
Sudeshs quarter informing that there was somebody in the room.
As Smt.
At about 10.30 p.m. on 14.10.1998, she was stitching and her husband was sleeping in the other room.
The Tribunal referred to the statement of PW1 Pritam Singh who deposed that Smt.
There is a ring of truth in the evidence of Smt.
These Appeals are directed against the said judgment of the Tribunal.
Master Bittoo was woken up by Smt.
He heard a boy shouting out for help at about 11 p.m. He took up a Talwar and went outside.
Lance Naik A. Hussain was among the people who reached the place of the incident.
Sudesh heard some sound of breaking of a bottle from the toilet of her house and numbericed the movement of a person in the toilet.
He inspected the window of the toilet and found the lower portion of the window had been removed and was lying near the drain block and the frame of the window was broken.
Mithilesh, mother of Bittoo, enquiring from outside as to what was the matter to which Bittoo replied that somebody has companye into the house.
They switched on the lights and found that the door of the bed room was bolted from outside.
Sudesh and there is numberreason for her to falsely implicate the Respondent.
Sudesh was alone, her neighbors son Master Jaynendra alias Bittoo was requested to stay with her.
Sudeh also screamed at which the intruder ran out of the bed room closing and bolting the bed room from outside.
The Tribunal found the statement of Smt.
Mithilesh was examined as PW3.
However, as the intention of the house breaking was number established, the Court of Inquiry recommended that disciplinary action be initiated against the Respondent.
Sudesh have been highlighted by the Tribunal to hold that the charge against the Respondent was number proved.
In the meanwhile, the intruder walked up towards the door of the bed room and stood in the door way.
In view of the companytradictions in the evidence of Smt.
Thereafter, people gathered at the main entrance and opened the locked room and entered inside the bed room and started enquiring about the incident.
He was summoned as Court witness 1 and he deposed that he knows the Respondent who was staying in the block which is opposite the quarter of Sowar Kishore Kumar Yadav.
After the incident, Smt.
Challenging the order of the Summary Court Martial, the Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab Haryana in the year 1999, which was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chandigarh the Tribunal .
Summary of evidence was recorded in the presence of the Respondent in terms of Rule 23 of the Army Rules and a charge sheet was laid against the Respondent for companymitting an offence under Section 69 of the Army Act companytrary to Section 456 of the Indian Penal Code IPC for house breaking by night.
Sudesh around 8.00 p.m. on 14.10.1998.
The light of the bed room, bath room and the lobby were number put off.
Sudesh and a boy in a terrified companydition.
Sudesh was number proved.
The Respondent was serving in the 74 th Armoured Regiment at Panagarh, West Bengal in the year 1998.
He inspected the toilet to find that the bottle which was companytaining acid was lying broken in the toilet.
Kalpana at the door of Smt.
Sudesh stated that she recognized the Respondent standing outside the door of her quarter immediately after the incident.
The minor companytradictions in the evidence of Smt.
Sudeshs quarter.
He stated that he was suffering from ear pain on the night of 14.10.1998 and he was lying in the bed but was number able to sleep.
In her testimony, Smt.
The broken ends of the detached portion of the window lying on the ground indicated that it was broken recently.
Lance Naik A. Hussain further deposed that there was an argument between Havildar K.K. Thakaran and the Respondent regarding the injuries on the upper portion of the arms of the Respondent.
Sudesh.
The other material on record has also been ignored by the Tribunal is the photograph of the bruises on both the arms of Respondent and the opinion of the doctor which was placed on record which lend support to the prosecution version.
She stated that her son shouted at 11 p.m. on 14.10.1998.
Master Bittoo stated that he was asked to go to the house of Smt.
The main issue that was decided in favour of the Respondent by the Tribunal related to the identity of the Respondent.
Om Prakash reached the place of the incident and both A. Hussain and Om Prakash entered the house of Kishore Kumar Yadav.
Sudesh was taken to his house where she stayed that night.
All these persons spoke about the incident and there is numbercontradiction in their versions.
She is the wife of Lance Nail Shailendra Singh and mother of Master Bittoo.
Sudesh and Bittoo crying out for help through the window of Smt.
Sunil Devi, Naik Ramesh Yadav, Respondent Dafadar Kartar Singh and his wife Smt.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Dafadar Kartar Singh, the Respondent herein was tried by the Summary Court Martial for a civil offence of house breaking by night.
on 15.10.1998 on receipt of companyplaint of house breaking.
Risaldar Pritam Singh visited the house of Sowar Kishore Kumar Yadav to investigate the incident at 1400 hrs.
He companyld make out that somebody was standing near the door.
The Tribunal held that the site inspection numbere was number prepared by Risaldar Pritam Singh and Risaldar Sant Ram and the dimensions of the quarter were number on record.
Sudesh when she went there.
