The Respondent also did number make any statement in his defence.
After appreciating the material on record, the Court of Inquiry recommended action to be initiated against the Respondent.
When the Respondent attempted to give a third blow, Naib Subedar A. P. Singh intervened.
The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army as Sepoy in the Unit 981 AD Regiment Workshop on 02.02.2002.
The Court of Inquiry was ordered against the Respondent to investigate the circumstances under which he used criminal force against Subedar Master Technical, Satyendra Singh Yadav.
We have heard Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Sudhanshu S. Pandey, learned companynsel appearing for the Respondent.
Subedar Master Technical Communication Satyendra Singh Yadav was immediately shifted to Gokul Hospital, Jamnagar and a surgery was companyducted by a Neurosurgeon as his skull bone was fractured leading to internal bleeding and blood clotting in the brain.
The Court of Inquiry assembled on 03.06.2011.
The companytention of the Appellant that the summary of evidence was recorded in the presence of the Respondent is number acceptable.
The signature of the Respondent is found on the left hand side at the bottom of each page.
Initially, the Respondent hit Subedar Master Technical Communication Satyendra Singh Yadav on his head from behind and when Subedar Master Technical Communication Satyendra Singh Yadav turned around, the Respondent hit on his forehead with the Talwar.
The proceedings of the Court of Inquiry were companyducted 8 Page between 04.06.2011 and 08.06.2011 during which the statements of the Respondent and the other witnesses were recorded.
The proceedings for recording the summary of evidence were initiated by Lt.
He was posted at Jamnagar on 01.06.2011 and was scheduled to be on the third night duty from 0400 hrs to 0600 hrs.
The statement of witness No.3, Naib Subedar A. P. Singh ends at the middle of page No.9 of the original record.
After a detailed discussion, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the Respondent by holding that the imposition of the penalty of dismissal was with a pre determined mind and was arrived at without following the procedure prescribed by law.
Thus, he was excused from physical training parade.
2 and 12 were re examined in the presence of the Respondent.
Other witnesses, including the victim Subedar Master Technical Satyendra Singh Yadav were examined in the Court of Inquiry.
During the Court of Inquiry, the statement of the Respondent was recorded in which he stated that he was number provided liquor at 2000 hrs on 01.06.2011 by Subedar Master Technical Satyendra Singh Yadav.
A bare perusal of the recording would indicate that the signatures of the Respondent were obtained and filled up with the depositions of the witnesses later.
Two additional witnesses were examined and witness No.
On 02.06.2011, at about 0745 hrs, he assaulted Subedar Master Technical Communication Satyendra Singh Yadav, with a Talwar grass cutting tool without any provocation.
After the judgment was reserved, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union of India, handed over the original record pertaining to the Court of Inquiry.
3 Page The order dated 23.07.2012 was questioned by the Respondent before the Tribunal.
By an order dated 23.07.2012, the Summary Court Martial found the respondent guilty and imposed the sentence of dismissal from service.
Twelve witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution between 10.06.2011 and 15.06.2011.
The signature of the Respondent is found at the left hand side at the bottom of the said page.
The prosecution alleges that the Respondent refused to cross examine the witnesses though he was given an opportunity to do so.
The Respondent had voluntarily given a statement that he hit the victim with a grass cutting tool without any provocation.
Amarvir Singh.
Thereafter, on 20.10.2011, additional summary of evidence was recorded.
According to the Appellants, the Respondent declined to cross examine the prosecution witnesses.
He was angry about the refusal of liquor due to which he attacked the victim by using Talwar on the 6 Page morning of 02.06.2011.
Nine witnesses were examined and the Respondent declined to cross 2 Page examine the witnesses though he was given an opportunity.
The second half of the page is left blank.
The Court of Inquiry was companyvened against the Respondent by Colonel Sanjay Khanna, Commanding Officer, 48 AD Regiment on 03.06.2011 to investigate into the circumstances which led the Respondent using criminal force against Subedar Master Technical Communication Satyendra Singh Yadav.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. This Appeal is filed against the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow hereinafter, the Tribunal by which the order of dismissal of the Respondent dated 23.07.2012 was set aside.
