{"id":14237,"date":"2011-09-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011"},"modified":"2019-02-08T04:22:47","modified_gmt":"2019-02-07T22:52:47","slug":"ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ex.Const.\/Gd Rana Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Ex.Const.\/Gd Rana Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                      Judgment Reserved on: 30th August, 2011\n                     Judgment Pronounced on: 13th September, 2011\n\n+                          W.P.(C) 5878\/2011\n\n        EX.CONST.\/GD RANA PRATAP SINGH         ....Petitioner\n                 Through: Ms.Rekha Palli, Ms.Punam Singh\n                           and Ms.Amrita Prakash, Advocates.\n\n                                versus\n\n        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                  ...Respondents\n                  Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate and\n                           Dy.Comdt.Bhupinder Sharma, BSF.\n\n        CORAM:\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n        to see the judgment?\n\n     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\nPRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.      Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to filing of
\nthe present petition are that the petitioner was enrolled as a
\nConstable under Border Security Force and was attached with
\nthe 23rd Battalion and on 16.11.2008 was performing duties in
\nthe D Coy on Indo-Bangladesh border at BOPs Soldighi and
\nNayabari.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                     Page 1 of 28<\/span><\/p>\n
 2.    The petitioner and Ct.B.Kapmilian PW-2, were detailed to
\nperform patrolling duty at Ambush Point No.3 from 05.30 PM
\non 16.03.2008        till 08.00    AM on 17.03.2008. The area
\ncomprising Ambush Point No.3 extended from BFL Poles No.8
\nto 22. Ct.B.Kapmilian PW-2 and the petitioner decided amongst
\nthemselves that the petitioner would patrol between BFL Poles
\nNo.8 to 14 and Ct.B.Kapmilian would patrol between BFL Poles
\nNo.15 to 22.\n<\/p>\n
3.    When Ct.B.Kapmilian PW-2, was patrolling in his area, at
\nabout 09.40 PM, he heard the sound of gun fire from towards
\nBangladesh side, whereupon he went to the area where the
\npetitioner was patrolling but could not see him and thus he
\nwent to the Coy Headquarters and informed petitioner being
\nmissing.       As    per   the    respondents,   on   receiving    said
\ninformation, the Coy Commander Subedar Sunder Singh PW-3,
\nand a few other officers searched the petitioner and in the
\nmeantime, at about 10.30 PM, DIG R.Chandra Mohan PW-3
\nreceived a telephone call from Col.Mohd. Aftabul Islam, Sector
\nCommander, Bangladesh Rifles (hereinafter referred to as the
\n\u201eBDR\u201f) that a BSF personnel had entered into village Moyanagri
\nin Bangladesh and fired indiscriminately at the residents of the
\nvillage, causing death and serious injuries to several villagers
\nand that the villagers had overpowered and beaten the said
\nBSF jawan who was rescued by the jawans of BDR and
\nadmitted for medical treatment at the local hospital in
\nBangladesh.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                      Page 2 of 28<\/span><\/p>\n
 4.    It   transpired   that     one     Mohd.Mustafa,     a     woman
\nMst.Majeedia Begum and her 8 month old son Mamoon had
\ndied as a result of firearm injuries, and Mohd.Shahidul Islam,
\nhusband of Mst.Majeedia Begum, was grievously injured.
\nPetitioner was overpowered by the villagers, beaten, but
\nrescued by BDR persons and admitted at the local hospital.
\nDIG R.Chandra Mohan PW-3 and Deputy Commandant Binnar
\nPaul PW-6, persuaded the officials of BDR to hand over the
\ncustody of the petitioner to them as also the various objects
\nseized by them from the place of occurrence, which included
\none    5.56    mm    INSAS     rifle   bearing   butt   No.328,     body
\nNo.16914015, 3 empty cartridges, 5 live rounds, 1 pair of
\njungle boots, 1 pair of anklets, 1 cap and 3 magazines of 5.56
\nmm INSAS rifle. Thereafter Dr.Tarkeshwar Prasad PW-9 and
\nDr.Hemanta Chetia from the BSF Hospital went to Rangpur
\nMedical College Hospital where petitioner was admitted in
\nBangladesh and upon finding him fit, brought him to India in
\nsafe custody.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Holding a staff court of inquiry and in view of the prima
\nfacie finding therein, a decision was taken to initiate action
\nagainst the petitioner and complying with Rule 45 of the BSF
\nRules i.e. conducting proceedings pertaining to hearing of the
\ncharge, the Commandant framed following 6 charges against
\nthe petitioner:-\n<\/p>\n
“FIRST CHARGE           COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE THAT IS
\nU\/S 46, BSF ACT         SAY MURDER PUNISHABLE U\/S 302 IPC
\n1968<\/span><\/p>\n
                        In that he,
\nWP(C) No.5878\/2011                                        Page 3 of 28<\/span>
\n                      On the intervening night of 16th and 17th of
\n                     November 2008, at Moynaguri within PS
\n                     Tetulia, Distt-Panchgarh, Bangladesh, by
\n                     firing shot from his personal INSAS rifle butt
\n                     No.328, Regd No.169014015, committed
\n                     murder by intentionally causing the death of
\n                     Mohd. Gulam Mustafa aged about 55 years,
\n                     S\/O late Jamshed Ali, resident of village
\n                     Moynaguri, PS Tetulia, Distt – Panchgarh,
\n                     Bangladesh and thereby committed an
\n                     offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
SECOND CHARGE        COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE THAT IS
\nU\/S 46, BSF ACT      SAY MURDER PUNISHABLE U\/S 302 IPC
\n1968<\/span><\/p>\n
                     In that he,
\n                     On the intervening night of 16th and 17th of
\n                     November 2008, at Moynaguri within PS
\n                     Tetulia, Distt-Panchgarh, Bangladesh, by
\n                     firing shot from his personal INSAS rifle butt
\n                     No.328, Regd No.169014015, committed
\n                     murder by intentionally causing the death of
\n                     Majeeda Begum aged about 28 years, W\/O
\n                     Shahidul     Islam,   resident   of    village
\n                     Moynaguri, PS Tetulia, Distt – Panchgarh,
\n                     Bangladesh and thereby committed an
\n                     offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.\n<\/p>\n
THIRD CHARGE         COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE THAT IS
\nU\/S 46, BSF ACT      SAY MURDER PUNISHABLE U\/S 302 IPC
\n1968<\/span><\/p>\n
                     In that he,
\n                     On the intervening night of 16th and 17th of
\n                     November 2008, at Moynaguri within PS
\n                     Tetulia, Distt-Panchgarh, Bangladesh, by
\n                     firing shot from his personal INSAS rifle butt
\n                     No.328, Regd No.169014015, committed
\n                     murder by intentionally causing the death of
\n                     Mohd Mamunur Rashid Alias Mamun aged
\n                     about 8 months, S\/O Shahidul Islam,
\n                     resident of village Moynaguri, PS Tetulia,
\n                     Distt – Panchgarh, Bangladesh and thereby<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                   Page 4 of 28<\/span>
\n                          committed an offence punishable under
\n                         Section 302 of IPC.<\/p>\n
\n\nFOURTH CHARGE            COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE THAT IS\nU\/S 46, BSF ACT          TO SAY ATTEMPT TO MURDER\n1968                     PUNISHABLE U\/S 307 IPC\n\n                         In that he,\n<\/pre>\n
                         On the intervening night of 16th and 17th of
\n                         November 2008, at Moynaguri within PS
\n                         Tetulia, Distt-Panchgarh, Bangladesh, by
\n                         firing shot from his personal INSAS rifle butt
\n                         No.328, Regd No.169014015, with intent to
\n                         kill Mohd. Shahidul Islam (aged about 35
\n                         years) S\/O late Hussain Ali, resident of
\n                         village Moynaguri, PS Tetulia, Distt –\n<\/p>\n
                         Panchgarh, Bangladesh, caused injury to
\n                         said Bangladeshi National, and thereby
\n                         committed an offence punishable under
\n                         Section 307 of IPC.<\/p>\n
FIFTH CHARGE             WITHOUT ORDERS FROM HIS SUPERIOR
\nU\/S 16(d) BSF            OFFICER LEAVES HIS PICKET
\n1968<\/span>
\n                         In that he,
\n                         While performing ambush duty (an active
\n                         duty), at ACP No.3 Ex-BOP Nayabari from
\n                         1730 hrs to 2200 hrs on the intervening
\n                         night of 16th and 17th Nov 2008, left the
\n                         place of duty (picket) without order from his
\n                         superior officer.<\/p>\n
SIXTH CHARGE             AN ACT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER
\nU\/S 40, BSF ACT          DISCIPLINE OF THE FORCE
\n1968<\/span>
\n                         In that he,
\n                         While performing ambush duty Ex-BOP
\n                         Nayabari from 1730 hrs to 2200 hrs on 16th
\n                         November 2008 improperly and without
\n                         authority, crossed over to Bangladesh.”\n<\/p>\n
6.    After    hearing   the   petitioner    on   the   charge,         the
\nCommandant directed that Record of Evidence be prepared.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                       Page 5 of 28<\/span><\/p>\n
 7.    At the Record of Evidence proceedings, several witnesses
\nwere examined by the department.           Thereafter, as per the
\nrequirement of Rule 48(3) of the BSF Rules, the petitioner
\nmade a statement in which he stated that while patrolling he
\nsaw 6 persons trying to cross over the fence from Bangladesh
\nand as he challenged them, they hid in the bushes. A stone
\nwas thrown at him, followed by verbal abuses and one person
\ntaunted him by showing his private parts. To scare them, he
\ncocked his rifle thinking that they would run away.            They
\ndidn\u201ft.    He got angry and decided to pursue them and
\novercome by emotion, he jumped over gate No.44 of the
\nborder fence.        In the past, Bangladeshis used to abuse BSF
\njawans and due to this he had developed hatred towards them.
\nAs he was in the culvert, somebody hit him on the head and
\ntried to snatch his rifle and as he resisted, shots got fired. His
\nrifle was snatched and somebody else fired indiscriminately.
\nHe lost consciousness and when he regained consciousness he
\nfound himself in a hospital.\n<\/p>\n
8.    The matter was placed before the IG BSF, North Bengal
\nFrontier, who considered the Record of Evidence and directed
\npetitioner\u201fs trial at a General Security Force Court; and at the
\ntrial the prosecution examined 25 witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
9.    Ct.P.Joga      Rao   PW-1   and   Ct.A.Chidambaram    PW-12,
\ndeposed that on 16.11.2008 they were performing patrolling
\nduty at Ambush Point No.4 when at about 09.25 PM they heard
\nsounds of gun fire from towards Bangladesh side and that they
\nlearnt that the petitioner was found missing from his duty<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                   Page 6 of 28<\/span>
\n around that time. On being questioned about crossing the
\nfencing by the force personnel, the witness (PW-1) stated:
\n(Quote) \u201eDuring my service record I have never crossed the
\nfence during night duty. There are instructions that no one will
\ncross the fence either during day or night except with prior
\npermission           and   after   following   the   laid      down
\nprocedure…..Briefing was done by the Coy Comdr at the time
\nof departure of ACP parties and oftenly he told not to cross
\nfencing and in event of suspicious movement having been
\nobserved by the ACP party immediate intimation be given to
\nthe Coy Comdr for action.\u201f<\/p>\n
10.   Ct.B.Kapmilian PW-2, deposed that during patrolling duty
\nthe petitioner was found missing. On being questioned about
\ncrossing the fence by the force personnel he said: (Quote)
\n\u201eDuring ACP duties our area of responsibility extends upto IB.
\nHowever, there are instructions that we could not go across
\nthe fencing alone during night time….There were directions of
\nCoy Comdr that troops performing duty in ACP during night
\ntime were not permitted to go across Border fencing.\u201f<\/p>\n
11.   Sunder Lal PW-3, deposed of petitioner being reported
\nmissing and information received from BDR of petitioner being
\nin their custody and his being brought back to India from
\nBangladesh. On being questioned about crossing the fence by
\nthe force personnel he stated: (Quote) \u201eI used to pass all the
\ninstructions of Higher HQs during roll-call like the instructions
\nthat no one will go across the fencing except for zero line
\npatrolling, Special patrolling duties and that too, during day<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                   Page 7 of 28<\/span>
\n time. No one was allowed to go across the fence for any
\npurpose during night duty, unless directed by Bn HQ or in
\nspecial    situation   and   only   in   presence   of    Officer\/Coy
\nComdr….There were instructions that no person would go
\nacross the Border Fencing without prior permission, either
\nduring day or night time. There were instructions that no single
\nperson would go across the fence during day or nighttime. If
\npersonnel had to go across the fence for duty, Gate drill had to
\nbe followed by the party…. The crossing of gate or fence by
\nBSF personnel without getting the gate opened was strictly
\nprohibited.\n<\/p>\n
12.   Dr.R.Chandra Mohan PW-5, DIG BSF Northern Frontier
\nand Binnar Paul PW-6 Deputy Commandant and Diwakar
\nKumar (2-IC) PW-10, deposed of petitioner being brought back
\nfrom Bangladesh to India and all of them deposed that on
\n17.11.2008 when they visited the place of the incident they
\nsaw bullet marks on the trees and CGI sheets wall of the
\nhouses situated near the place of occurrence. On being
\nquestioned about crossing the fence by the force personnel,
\nDr.R.Chandra Mohan PW-5, stated: (Quote) \u201eThere were clear
\ninstructions that no BSF person on duty should cross the fence
\nduring night or day time on his own without following the
\nproper procedure.\u201f On being questioned about force personnel
\ncrossing the fence 2-IC Diwakar Kumar PW-10, stated: (Quote)
\n\u201eIf during ACP duty the ACP party observed any suspicious
\nhappening between fencing and IB concerning his AOR then he
\nis supposed to immediately inform about this to his Coy\/Post
\nComdr, and they are not supposed to go ahead of fence on
\nWP(C) No.5878\/2011                                       Page 8 of 28<\/span>
\n their own under any circumstances.\u201f            On the subject of the
\ncircumstance under which the petitioner was brought back
\nfrom Bangladesh to India, since an argument was raised, we
\nnote that DIG R.Chandra Mohan PW-5 stated during his
\ntestimony as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      “After assurance to initiate strict disciplinary action
\n      against Ct R P Singh as per the law of land, BDR
\n      allowed to first send two doctors of BSF to RMCH for
\n      examining the condition of the accused, as to
\n      whether he was in a position to be taken to India or
\n      otherwise. BDR officials agreed to hand over the
\n      accused, provided strict disciplinary action was taken
\n      against him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.   HC Balbir Singh PW-7, deposed that on 16.11.2008 an
\nINSAS     5.56       mm   rifle   bearing   Butt   No.328     and     Body
\nNo.1694015 along with 50 rounds and 3 magazines was issued
\nto the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
14.   Dr.Tarkeshwar Prasad PW-9, deposed that on 17.11.2008
\nhe had gone to Rangpur Medical College Hospital, Bangladesh
\nand on finding the petitioner conscious with some injuries on
\nthe non-vital parts of his body, he brought the petitioner to
\nIndia in an ambulance.\n<\/p>\n
15.   Dr.A.Sen Gupta PW-11, Senior Scientific Officer, Forensic
\nScience Laboratory, Kolkata deposed that he examined 5.56
\nmm INSAS rifle bearing butt No.328, body No.16914015, and 3
\nempty cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence. As
\nper his opinion the 3 empty cartridges recovered from the
\nplace of occurrence were fired from 5.56 mm INSAS rifle
\nbearing butt No.328, body No.16914015.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                          Page 9 of 28<\/span><\/p>\n
 16.   Mohd.Shahidul Islam PW-15, deposed that on 16.11.2008
\nhe was sleeping in his house when his wife Majeeda Begum
\nwoke him and told him that she had heard sound of firing from
\noutside their house. He and his wife thought that somebody
\nwas bursting crackers and thus they did not pay heed, but
\nwhen they again heard the firing sound from near their house
\nhe asked his wife to get up and make enquiries. At that time,
\nfew bullets hit the wall of his house whereupon his wife picked
\nup their younger son Mamoon and he picked up their elder
\nchild and rushed out of their house. When he opened the door
\nof his house, he saw a BSF jawan standing there. He tried to
\nclose the door but the jawan fired several rounds and one
\nbullet hit his left hand and another bullet hit him in the
\nabdomen. He fell on the ground and the jawan entered his
\nhouse. His wife who was holding their son in her lap ran to
\nsave her life but the jawan fired several rounds at her due to
\nwhich she fell on the ground. His son who was held by his wife
\nin her lap also sustained bullet injuries. His wife and son died
\ndue to the bullet injuries caused to them. On hearing the firing
\nsound his relatives came to his house and removed him to a
\nhospital.\n<\/p>\n
17.   Relevant would it be to note that no suggestions were
\ngiven to the witness that he was present at the culvert at the
\nIndo-Bangladesh Border and had received injuries at the
\nculvert or that his wife and son received injuries at the culvert.\n<\/p>\n
18.   Md.Abdus Saleem PW-13, deposed that on 16.11.2008 he
\nhad organized a party in his house. The party started at around<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                   Page 10 of 28<\/span>
\n 09.00 P.M. and ended 20-30 minutes thereafter. His brother
\nGulam Mustafa had also come to his house to attend the party
\nand left for his residence when the party was over. At around
\n09.30 P.M. accompanied by his cousin brother Safiqul Islam, he
\nhad gone to his brother\u201fs house to bring his daughter when he
\nheard a sound of fire. After about 5 minutes he again heard
\nsound of firing whereupon his brother Gulam Mustafa also
\ncame out of his house. While he and his brother were standing
\nin front of his brother\u201fs house he saw a person coming from
\nthe southern side of the house of his brother whereupon he
\nflashed his torch at him. The said person told them that he is a
\nBDR personnel. When he again flashed his torch at the said
\nperson he saw that the uniform worn by the person resembled
\nthe uniform of BSF personnel. He again made enquiries from
\nthe said person upon which the person hurled abuses at him in
\nHindi. Since said person abused him in Hindi he was sure that
\nthe said person was a BSF personnel and not a BDR personnel.
\nHe immediately ran from there and hid himself near a pond. At
\nthat time the said person opened fire towards his direction.
\nWith great difficulty he managed to escape from there and
\nwent to his neighbour\u201fs house and told him to remove his
\nbrother Gulam Mustafa to the hospital who was hit by the
\nbullets fired by the person.    He went to the BDR post and
\nreported the incident and on return saw his brother being
\nremoved to the hospital; where he died.        He stated that the
\nperson who fired looked like the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
19.   Relevant would it be to note that no suggestions were
\ngiven to the witness that he was present at the culvert at the
\nWP(C) No.5878\/2011                                   Page 11 of 28<\/span>
\n Indo-Bangladesh Border and that firing took place at the
\nculvert. Further relevant would it be to note that on being
\nquestioned about his passport and visa, he stated: (Quote) \u201eI
\ndo not have passport and visa for coming to India today but I
\nhave my I-card issued by the Bangladesh Govt. and I have
\nbeen permitted by m y country to visit India and depose before
\nthe Court about the firing incident.\u201f<\/p>\n
20.   Mohd.Hanif Miya PW-16, deposed that on 16.11.2008 at
\nabout 08.00 P.M. he was sleeping when his mother woke him
\nup and told him that she had heard sound of fire from the
\neastern side of their house. He got up and was lighting the
\nlamp when he again heard sound of firing coming from the
\neastern side of his house. He and his wife went out of the
\nhouse to look into the matter. Thereafter he went to the rear
\nside of his house for urination when he saw the petitioner enter
\nhis house and he heard the screams of his children whereupon
\nhe immediately ran inside his house and saw the petitioner
\npointing his rifle towards his children. He caught hold of the
\nbarrel of the rifle and pushed it in the upper direction. He
\ngrappled with the petitioner to snatch the rifle and with the
\nassistance of his wife he managed to snatch the rifle.
\nThereafter the petitioner ran out of his house and he chased
\nhim. On hearing his screams, his brother Mohd.Hamidul, who
\nwas sleeping in his house came out of the house and caught
\nhold of the petitioner. They tied the petitioner with a rope and
\nafter sometime handed over the petitioner and his rifle to BDR.
\nIt is relevant to note the following portion of the cross-
\nexamination of the witness, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                   Page 12 of 28<\/span><\/p>\n
       “…..I do not have valid Visa and Passport for coming
\n      here to depose my statement before the Court……It
\n      is correct to say that my hand suffered little burn
\n      when I pushed the barrel in upper direction. However,
\n      I do not have any document to show that I took
\n      treatment of that injury as I did not take any formal
\n      treatment…..It is incorrect to suggest that I go for
\n      fishing in Bhutijhari nullah flowing across the border
\n      and in that process I cross towards India. The
\n      villagers of Moynakuri do not go for fishing in
\n      Bhutjihari nullah. It is incorrect to suggest that while
\n      some villagers were fishing in nullah on India side
\n      and were objected by accused then some villagers
\n      caught hold of the accused, beat him and in that
\n      process took him in their custody….” (Emphasis
\n      Supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
21.   Mohd.Mintu PW-17, deposed that on 16.11.2008 at about
\n09.45 P.M. he heard sound of indiscriminate firing and as the
\nfiring stopped he saw his brother Shahidul Islam crawling and
\nscreaming saying that he had suffered a bullet injury and that
\nhis wife Majeeda Begum and son Mamoon were dead.                     He
\nremoved his brother to the hospital but had no knowledge of
\nthe identity of the person who fired.      On being questioned
\nabout his Passport and Visa he stated: (Quote) \u201eI do not have
\nVisa and Passport for coming to India and depose my
\nstatement before the Court.\u201f<\/p>\n
22.   Subedar Nipen Chandra Das PW-18, Havildar Turab Ali
\nPW-19, officials of BDR, and Sub Inspector Mohd.Abdul Latif
\nMiah PW-20, official of Bangladesh Police, deposed the seizures
\neffected by them and handed over to BSF personnel.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                   Page 13 of 28<\/span><\/p>\n
 23.     Dr.Bahram Ali PW-21, deposed that he conducted the
\npost-mortem on the dead body of Gulam Mustafa, Mazeeda
\nBegum and Mamoon and that the cause of death of the said
\npersons was the bullet injuries.\n<\/p>\n
24.     Dr.Mohd.Abdul    Quayum    PW-22,    deposed    that        on
\n17.11.2008 at about 07.00 A.M. the petitioner was brought to
\nthe surgical ward of Rangpur Medical College Hospital with
\nhistory of assault and multiple cut injuries over right shoulder,
\nscalp and right shin. He examined the petitioner at about
\n09.00 A.M. and the condition of the petitioner was stable at
\nthat time.\n<\/p>\n
25.     Vipin Kumar Yadav PW-23, Deputy Commandant, BSF,
\nand Captain Ashraf Parvez PW-24 proved the correspondences
\nexchanged between the BSF, BDR and the Ministries of Home
\nAffairs and External Affairs regarding the production of
\nBangladeshi nationals before the General Security Force Court
\nfor the purposes of recording their testimony in the present
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
26.     2-IC Rajesh Kumar Sahay PW-25, deposed that he
\nprepared the Record of Evidence and the statement Ex.BB
\nmade by the petitioner was recorded by him. Be it noted here
\nthat no suggestion was given to the witness that the statement
\nwas incorrectly recorded by him.\n<\/p>\n
27.     After prosecution evidence was led, the petitioner made a
\nstatement under Rule 93 of the BSF Rules wherein he stated
\nthat on 16.11.2008 along with Ct.Kapmilian he was detailed to<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                  Page 14 of 28<\/span>
\n perform patrolling duty at Ambush Point No.3. He and Ct
\nB.Kapmilian PW-2, decided amongst themselves that he would
\nperform patrol duty between BFL Poles Nos.8 to 15 and that Ct.
\nB.Kapmilain would perform patrol duty between BFL Poles
\nNos.15 to 22. There was a culvert in the area between BFL
\nPoles Nos.8 and 9 under which there was a Hume pipe through
\nwhich water flowed from India to Bangladesh. At about 09.00
\nP.M. he was performing patrolling duty on his bicycle in the
\narea around BFL Pole No.8 when he heard a noise as if
\nsomeone was walking in the water. Thereafter he saw about 6
\npersons running here and there, some of whom came towards
\nthe culvert and hid themselves in bushes. After a while he
\nthought of reporting the matter to Ct.Kapmilian and called out
\nhis name 2-3 times but he did not receive any response. There
\nwere strict instructions from Coy Commander and CHM that
\nnobody should be allowed to enter Indian territory from
\nBangladesh. After sometime someone threw a stone which hit
\nthe border fencing. In order to scare said persons he took out
\nthe magazine from his rifle and cocked his rifle once or twice
\nbut the said persons did not run away. He saw said persons
\nchange their hiding place. He saw one intruder run towards
\nBangladesh side. While running, the intruder provoked him by
\nusing abusive language against him and also showed his
\nprivate parts to him.   Since it appeared to him that the said
\nintruders were planning to enter into Indian Territory, he
\ncrossed over to the other side of the border fence from gate
\nNo.44 to chase or catch said intruders. While he was in the
\nprocess of chasing the intruders he fell on the ground. By the
\nWP(C) No.5878\/2011                                Page 15 of 28<\/span>
\n time he got up the said intruders had reached on a high
\nground in Bangladesh Territory. Thereafter he saw some
\npeople catching fish in the river. While he paused to regain
\nbreath in a kneeling position, suddenly he felt as if someone hit
\nhim in his back and he fell on the ground. At that time some
\npersons put net on him and covered his face with bamboo
\nbasket and tried to snatch his rifle. Even though he was in
\nacute pain he held on to his rifle but was dragged through the
\nwater and taken in Bangladesh territory. Someone hit him on
\nthe right side of his temple and legs with a sharp edged
\nweapon and he became unconscious and thus had no
\nknowledge as to what happened thereafter, till he regained
\nconsciousness and found himself surrounded by BDR personnel
\nwho were torturing him.\n<\/p>\n
28.   The petitioner was cross-examined and relevant part of
\nhis cross-examination reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      “While on duty on that night I was not agitated
\n      despite they shouted BSF dog and showed their
\n      private parts. The prosecutor draws the attention of
\n      the accused to a portion of his statement given at
\n      the time of ROE wherein he had stated “I was very
\n      very annoyed with all this and was thinking whether
\n      should catch him and beat him. The relevant portion
\n      is underlined in red ink and signed by the Law
\n      Officer. On being asked about the correctness of the
\n      statement the accused states that he did not say so
\n      during ROE.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The accused is also shown portion of his statement at
\n      Page No.46 wherein he stated “I had developed a
\n      hatred towards them. Hence, that night I was
\n      determined to catch one of them and beat them”. On<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                  Page 16 of 28<\/span>
\n       being asked if he had stated so the accused declined
\n      to have stated so.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
29.   The petitioner did not lead any evidence in defence.\n<\/p>\n
30.   After the evidence was recorded, the Law Officer
\naddressed the Court on the law relating to culpable homicide
\namounting to murder as also the law relating to appreciation
\nof evidence. The law officer formulating the facts in issue to
\nbe considered with respect to the charges.     The 3 facts in
\nissue to be considered by the Court were stated as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      “FIRST ISSUE OF FIRST\/SECOND\/THIRD CHARGE<\/p>\n
      That death of Mohd. Gulam Mustafa\/Majeeda
\n      Begum\/Mohd Mamunur Rashid…… took place on the
\n      intervening night of 16th and 17th Nov 2008.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      SECOND ISSUE OF FIRST\/SECOND\/THIRD CHARGE<\/p>\n
      That the accused caused the death of Mohd Gulam
\n      Mustafa\/Majeeda Begum\/Mohd Mamunur Rashid by
\n      firing shot at him\/her from his personal weapon
\n      INSAS Rifle Butt No.328, Regn No.16910415.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      THIRD ISSUE OF FIRST\/SECOND\/THIRD CHARGE<\/p>\n
      That the above act was done by the accused with the
\n      requisite intention\/knowledge as envisaged in
\n      Section 300 of IPC.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
31.   On 28.10.2009, the Court returned a finding of guilt
\nagainst the Petitioner and inflicted the punishment to
\nundergo imprisonment for life and dismissal from service
\nupon the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                 Page 17 of 28<\/span><\/p>\n
 32.   While summing up the evidence on the third fact in
\nissue,   which       was   the   only   issue   which   required         a
\nconsideration; inasmuch as the petitioner never disputed the
\nfirst two facts in issue, in that, he never disputed the death
\nof Mohd.Gulam Mustafa, Majeeda Begum and Mamoon as
\nalleged and the 3 dying as a result of receiving gun shot
\nwounds from the rifle issued to him. The law officer summed
\nup the evidence pertaining to petitioner\u201fs intention or
\nknowledge as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      “THIRD ISSUE<\/p>\n
      That the accused did act with requisite
\n      intention\/knowledge as envisaged in Section 300
\n      IPC.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             As regards the intention and knowledge is
\n      concerned, these are mental attitude which are not
\n      capable of positive proof. However, it can be
\n      inferred from the facts and circumstances of the
\n      case. The accused by unauthorisedly crossing over
\n      the Fence by scaling the gate, went in the
\n      Bangladesh village Moynaguri alongwith his
\n      personal weapon i.e. INSAS rifle and 50 rds. In the
\n      said village when PW-13 Abdus Salem asked the
\n      accused about his identity, then he (accused) firstly
\n      said “Ami BDR log” but subsequently abused in
\n      \u201eHindi\u201f and opened fire as a result of which Gulam
\n      Mustafa, Majeeda Begum and Mamun sustained
\n      bullet injuries and died. The accused, as per PW-15
\n      Shahidul Islam, had fired from vary close range and
\n      injured him and after entering inside the room fired
\n      at his wife and son and killed them. The accused
\n      had opened burst fire, indiscriminately, and besides
\n      causing bullet injuries to all four victims, evidence
\n      of firing in form of bullets hitting the CGI sheets wall
\n      of houses and trees were seen by PW-5, PW-6 and
\n      PW-10 who visited the place of incident during the
\nWP(C) No.5878\/2011                                       Page 18 of 28<\/span>
\n       Flag Meeting with BDR. While the accused has
\n      taken a plea that he had gone across the fence to
\n      deter the intruders and catch hold of them, but the
\n      manner in which he crossed over the Fence
\n      violating all norms, SOPs and instructions, his plea
\n      is not sustainable, and the act of the accused were
\n      intentional. Hence the Court take this issue as well
\n      as charges as proved.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
33.   That sentence and findings of the Security Force Court
\nwas confirmed by the confirming authority on 12.2.2010 and
\npetitioner\u201fs petition under Section 117 of the BSF Act being
\nrejected by the DG (BSF) on 28.6.2011 the instant petition
\nhas been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
34.   During     hearing   of   the   writ   petition,   following        4
\nsubmissions were advanced by the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner:-\n<\/p>\n
A.    The hearing of the charge as per Rule 45 was vitiated
\nfor the reason the Commandant of the Unit to which the
\npetitioner was attached considered the opinion of the IG BSF
\nto the effect that disciplinary action be initiated against the
\npetitioner.    It was urged that if the superior officer has so
\nopined, it was but obvious that the Commandant had no
\noption but to direct Record of Evidence to be prepared. It
\nwas urged that the petitioner lost the chance to explain to
\nthe Commandant that matter be dropped hence the trial is
\nvitiated.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                        Page 19 of 28<\/span><\/p>\n
 B.    That the testimony of DIG R.Chandra Mohan PW-6
\nevidences an assurance given to Bangladesh rifle personnel
\nthat petitioner would be tried and thus it was urged that the
\nprosecution      had   acted   with   a   pre-determined   and        a
\nmotivated mind.\n<\/p>\n
C.    That PW-13, PW-15, PW-16 and PW-17, all Bangladesh
\nNationals were brought illegally to India to depose against
\nthe petitioner and proof of they being illegally brought to
\ndepose against the petitioner was the fact that they neither
\nhad a passport nor a visa authorizing them to enter the
\nterritory of India.\n<\/p>\n
D.    At best, the offence committed by the petitioner was
\nculpable homicide not amounting to murder inasmuch as
\npetitioner\u201fs cross examination showed that the prosecution
\nsuggested to him that he got provoked by Bangladesh
\nNationals who used to, in the past, abuse BSF jawans and
\ntaunt them by exposing their private parts at BSF jawans.\n<\/p>\n
35.   Before dealing with the submissions advanced by the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner, we remind ourselves of our
\njurisdiction to be exercised with respect to Security Force
\nCourt Trials when petitions are brought under Article 226 of
\nthe Constitution of India. Deciding W.P.(Crl.) No. 93\/1980 R.S.
\nGhalwat v. UOI & Ors.<\/a> on 4.6.1981, a Division Bench of this
\nCourt laid down the parameters of the jurisdiction of the High
\nCourt while examining the correctness of the finding and<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                    Page 20 of 28<\/span>
\n sentence at Court Martial while exercising power under Article
\n226 of the Constitution of India in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
      “16. Effort was then made to go through the record
\n      of court martial (and we did go into it) and
\n      persuade us to hold that the finding of court martial
\n      was vitiated because of various alleged illegalities
\n      in the matter of confession, admissibility of
\n      evidence and other irregularities. Now if the writ
\n      petition was to be treated as a Habeas Corpus
\n      petition the only jurisdiction the court has would be
\n      to see whether the return shows that the detenu is
\n      held lawfully. Once it is shown, as in the present
\n      case that court martial, properly convened and
\n      constituted has passed an order in pursuance of
\n      which the Petitioner is being held no relief would be
\n      possible as this Court cannot go into the question of
\n      sufficiency of evidence, and the conviction by
\n      competent court would be a sufficient answer to the
\n      petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C. AIR 1946
\n      Lah 103: 47 Cri LJ 1022, Kartar Singh v. Emperor.
\n      The court is entitled to go into the regularity of
\n      steps taken by the court martial in the course of
\n      trial or by the confirming authority in the finding
\n      and the sentence which do not go to their
\n      jurisdiction and confirming. Interference is possible
\n      only where the irregularity or illegality affects the
\n      jurisdiction of the court martial or the confirming
\n      authority’<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      17. We, however, do not propose to dispose of this
\n      matter on this short point and heard the matter on
\n      the footing that the writ Petitioner was also asking a
\n      writ of certiorari, against the finding of a statutory
\n      tribunal, i.e. General Court Martial constituted
\n      under the Act. But even then the jurisdiction of this
\n      Court is limited to only finding out whether there is
\n      error of jurisdiction or it is a case of total lack of
\n      evidence. We do not sit as a court of appeal. If
\n      there was legal evidence available on which a
\n      finding could be given, the sufficiency or otherwise
\nWP(C) No.5878\/2011                                   Page 21 of 28<\/span>
\n       is for the authority to decide and this Court cannot
\n      substitute its opinion for that of Court martial.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      19. Thus where the court martial acts within
\n      jurisdiction, habeas corpus would not issue to
\n      interfere with its decision on the ground of mere
\n      insufficiency of evidence or irregularity of
\n      procedure except where there has been no hearing
\n      at all or the rules of natural justice have not been
\n      followed. In the Canadian case of Ex parte Forgan, it
\n      was recognized that, where a court martial has
\n      acted within its jurisdiction neither the merits of the
\n      conviction not the propriety of the sentence could
\n      be reviewed by the Supreme Court upon an
\n      application for either certiorari or habeas corpus.
\n      (See Military Law in India by Sharma P. 202, Notes
\n      68 and 69).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      20 Where a quasi judicial authority has jurisdiction
\n      to decide a matter, it does not lose its jurisdiction
\n      by coming to a wrong conclusion, whether it is
\n      wrong in law or in fact…. A tribunal may lack
\n      jurisdiction if it is improperly constituted, or if it fails
\n      to observe certain essential preliminaries to the
\n      inquiry. But it does not exceed its jurisdiction by
\n      basing it decision upon an incorrect determination
\n      of any question that it is empowered or required
\n      (i.e. had jurisdiction) to determine.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      See AIR 1962 SC 1621 Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar
\n      Pradesh. A<\/a> writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the
\n      Constitution can be issued for the purpose of
\n      examining the record and proceedings of a
\n      court\u00aamartial if the complaint is that the court-
\n      martial was not duly constituted, that it had no
\n      jurisdiction over the person or over the subject
\n      matter of the charge or that there is an error of law
\n      apparent on the face of the record or that the
\n      principles of natural justice were violated so as to
\n      result in miscarriage of justice. Where a court
\n      martial has acted within its jurisdiction neither the
\n      merits of the conviction nor the propriety of the
\nWP(C) No.5878\/2011                                        Page 22 of 28<\/span>
\n       sentence can be reviewed by this Court, upon an
\n      application for certiorari. The courts-martial are in
\n      fact a specialised form of administrative courts and
\n      the scope of review traditionally afforded by the
\n      civil courts over their judgments has been very
\n      limited. This is evident from the fact that Article 136
\n      of the Constitution expressly excluded the power of
\n      judicial review in respect of any judgment,
\n      determination sentence order passed or made by
\n      any court or tribunal constituted by or under any
\n      law relating to the armed forces though the
\n      jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts
\n      under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution
\n      respectively to issue writs to any person or
\n      authority has been preserved. See (2nd (1976) 2
\n      Del 691, Ram Murti Wadhwa v. Union of India. It<\/a> is
\n      true that general power to issue writs of Habeas
\n      Corpus and certiorari given to this Court under
\n      Article 226 does not make the finding of the court-
\n      martial totally immune from scrutiny by this Court.
\n      But as said by (1952) 346 US 137: 97 L Ed 1508,
\n      Burns v. Wilson “the statute which vests federal
\n      courts with jurisdiction over applications for habeas
\n      corpus from persons confined by the Military Courts
\n      is the same statute which vests them with
\n      jurisdiction over the applications of persons
\n      confined by the civil court. But in military habeas
\n      corpus the inquiry, the scope of matters open for
\n      review, has always been more narrow than in civil
\n      cases. Thus the law which governs a civil in the
\n      exercise of its jurisdiction over military habeas
\n      corpus applications cannot simply be assimilated to
\n      the law which governs the exercise of that power in
\n      other instances. It is suit generis; it must be so,
\n      because of the peculiar relationship between the
\n      civil and military law. Military law, like State law, is
\n      a jurisprudence which exists separate and apart
\n      from the law which governs in our federal judicial
\n      establishment. We have held before that this does
\n      not displace the civil courts’ jurisdiction over an
\n      application of habeas corpus from the military
\n      prisoner. But these provisions do mean that when a
\nWP(C) No.5878\/2011                                    Page 23 of 28<\/span>
\n       military decision had dealt fully and fairly with an
\n      allegation raised in the application it is not open to
\n      a federal civil court to grant the writ simply to re-
\n      evaluate the evidence…” (Emphasis Supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
36.   From the aforesaid observations, it is clear that while
\nexamining the correctness of finding and sentence of the
\nCourt Martial\/Security Force Courts, in exercise of its power
\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the jurisdiction
\nof the High Court is limited to finding out only whether there
\nexists an error of jurisdiction or is it a case of total lack of
\nevidence. It is not open to the High Court to re-evaluate the
\nevidence on record or whether the evidence on record is
\nsufficient to sustain the finding of the Court Martial\/Security
\nForce Court or to substitute its opinion for that of the Court
\nMartial\/Security Force Court.\n<\/p>\n
37.   The first submission advanced and as noted in para 34
\n(A) above is based upon an incorrect reading of the opinion of
\nthe IG North Bengal Frontier which was penned by him after
\nconsidering the staff court of inquiry. The opinion penned is
\nthat disciplinary action needs to be initiated. He never opined
\nthat the petitioner is guilty. Now, we all understand that staff
\ncourt of inquiry is akin to a preliminary inquiry and the object is
\nto find out whether there is prima facie material to initiate
\nformal legal proceedings. These opinions are always tentative
\nand being not final we see no scope that the Commandant of
\nthe unit got so overwhelmed by the remark of the superior
\nofficer that he lost objectivity.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                   Page 24 of 28<\/span><\/p>\n
 38.      The second plea premised on the testimony of DIG
\nR.Chandra Mohan PW-6 who admitted having given assurance
\nto Bangladesh rifle personnel that petitioner would be tried in
\nIndia does not mean that the witness admitted that the
\nassurance given was that come what may, the petitioner would
\nbe convicted and punished. It has to be remembered that the
\npetitioner had admittedly, even as per his defence statement,
\ncrossed over the border fence and entered Bangladesh
\nterritory. Now, if the case of the prosecution is correct, it is
\napparent that when he was overpowered, after he had killed 3
\nBangladesh citizens and had grievously injured 1 more, the
\ncrowd would be rooting for petitioner\u201fs blood and there would
\nbe immense local pressure on Bangladesh Rifle personnel and
\nthe local police, to try the petitioner as per laws in Bangladesh
\nsince     the   offence   was   committed   in   the   territory       of
\nBangladesh. It was to the benefit of the petitioner that he was
\nbrought to India for trial. Now, to sooth the frayed temper, an
\nassurance had to be given that the petitioner would be tried in
\nIndia.    Surely, the authorities in Bangladesh would not have
\npermitted the petitioner to be brought back to India without an
\nassurance of his being subjected to the legal process.            Said
\nassurance only means that the BSF personnel assured that
\npetitioner would be tried as per law and not that the assurance
\nwas that come what may, the petitioner would be convicted.\n<\/p>\n
39.       The third plea that PW-13, PW-15, PW-16 and PW-17
\nentered India without a passport is a plea which is neither here
\nnor there for the reason the testimony of PW-23 and PW-24
\nproves that special permission was given to let said persons
\nWP(C) No.5878\/2011                                     Page 25 of 28<\/span>
\n enter the territory of India and deposed at the trial of the
\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
40.     On the last plea, it would be incorrect to urge that no
\nparticular intention of the petitioner has surfaced.             The
\ntestimony of PW-13, PW-15, PW-16 and PW-17 brings out that
\nthe petitioner fired indiscriminately and the weapon used was
\nan INSAS rifle; capable of rapid firing and indeed the petitioner
\nfired a complete magazine. He may not have desired to kill
\nany person specifically, but the desire was to kill Bangladesh
\nNationals and the motive is obvious. Bangladesh citizens used
\nto taunt BSF jawans. The petitioner was seething in rage. The
\nindiscriminate firing by a rapid fire assault rifle is akin to the
\nsituation as per illustration (d) to Section 300 IPC i.e.: \u201eA
\nwithout any excuse fires a loaded canon into a crowd of
\npersons and killed one of them. A is guilty of murder although
\nhe may not have had a premeditated design to kill any
\nparticular individual.\u201f<\/p>\n
41.   The testimony establishes that the petitioner had crossed
\nover the fence, which he was not supposed to do.                     He
\nobviously did so as some actions or acts of Bangladesh citizens
\nhad provoked him. He chased them to teach them a lesson.
\nThe statement Ex.BB recorded during Record of Evidence, from
\nwhich he resiled at the trial, and in respect whereof we find
\nthat the petitioner never challenged the testimony of 2-IC
\nRajesh Kumar Sahai who stated that he recorded the said
\nstatement correctly, made by the petitioner brings out the
\ntruth and the same is that the petitioner chased the citizens of<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                   Page 26 of 28<\/span>
\n Bangladesh and it was anger which propelled him to so do.
\nThe alternative submission urged with respect to the act of the
\npetitioner attracting Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, suffice
\nwould it be to state that the Exception applies when self
\ncontrol is lost by a provocation which is grave and sudden. As
\nper the statement made by the petitioner, in the past, there
\nwere instances of Bangladesh Nationals taunting BSF jawans.
\nPetitioner claims to have been taunted in the past. Thus, we
\nsee no scope for the provocation to be sudden. We do not find
\nthe provocation to be grave.     An illiterate villager, and we
\npresume that Bangladesh citizens who live in a village in a
\nborder area would be so, if taunts a BSF jawan, would not
\ninvite the retribution of being shot or the BSF jawan being
\novercome by a grave provocation. It is not provocation but the
\nintense past hatred which triggered the action from the
\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
42.   Though no serious attempt was made during argument
\nthat the defence of the petitioner was wrongly rejected, we
\nmay only highlight that the manner in which the petitioner
\nclaims to be hit on his head and thereby losing consciousness
\nand he not knowing how his rifle was used, is not believable for
\nthe reason he never cross-examined the eye witnesses by
\nputting his version as aforesaid. Further, his cross-examining
\nPW-16 by suggesting that it was correct that his hand suffered
\na little burn when he pushed, in the upper direction, the barrel
\nof the rifle of the petitioner shows that the petitioner admitted
\nto the version of firing as disclosed by PW-16. The evidence of
\nDr.Mohd.Abdul Quayum PW-22 brings out that the petitioner
\nWP(C) No.5878\/2011                                  Page 27 of 28<\/span>
\n was conscious when he was brought to the hospital in
\nBangladesh, which deposition has not even been challenged,
\nand thus belies the claim of the petitioner that when some
\nBangladeshi citizen hit him on his head he lost consciousness.
\nThere is tell-tale evidence against the petitioner and we need
\nnot discuss the same, save and except highlight as aforesaid
\nfor the reason we are not sitting in appeal.    As regards the
\ninjuries suffered by the petitioner, which no doubt was serious,
\ninasmuch as he was hit with a blunt object on his head, suffice
\nwould it be to state that when he was disarmed, the angry
\ncrowd or someone within the crowd hit him on the head and by
\nthat time the petitioner had executed his gruesome acts.\n<\/p>\n
43.   Finding no merit in the writ petition we dismiss the same,
\nbut without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                 (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
\n                                        JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                     (SUNIL GAUR)
\n                                          JUDGE
\nSeptember 13, 2011
\nmm<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.5878\/2011                                  Page 28 of 28<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Ex.Const.\/Gd Rana Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 September, 2011 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 30th August, 2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 13th September, 2011 + W.P.(C) 5878\/2011 EX.CONST.\/GD RANA PRATAP SINGH ….Petitioner Through: Ms.Rekha Palli, Ms.Punam […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nEx.Const.\/Gd Rana Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ex.Const.\/Gd Rana Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-07T22:52:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ex.Const.\\\/Gd Rana Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-07T22:52:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":7354,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Ex.Const.\\\/Gd Rana Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-07T22:52:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ex.Const.\\\/Gd Rana Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ex.Const.\/Gd Rana Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ex.Const.\/Gd Rana Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-07T22:52:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ex.Const.\/Gd Rana Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-07T22:52:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011"},"wordCount":7354,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011","name":"Ex.Const.\/Gd Rana Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-07T22:52:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-const-gd-rana-pratap-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ex.Const.\/Gd Rana Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14237"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14237\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}