{"id":237358,"date":"1998-05-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-05-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998"},"modified":"2017-05-22T17:40:10","modified_gmt":"2017-05-22T12:10:10","slug":"s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998","title":{"rendered":"S.S. Mehta (Captain) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
S.S. Mehta (Captain) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1998 IVAD Delhi 385, 74 (1998) DLT 42, 1998 (46) DRJ 617<\/div>\n
Author: K Ramamoorthy<\/div>\n
Bench: K Ramamoorthy<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
K. Ramamoorthy, J.<\/p>\n
1.      The petitioner has challenged the order dated the 4th of August, 1994, wherein the Government of India confirmed the sentence imposed by the Court Martial which is in the following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
     “SENTENCE <\/p>\n
     The  court sentence the accused No.IC-37760A Captain  Shiv  Singh Mehta   of   5685  Army  Service  Corps   Battalion   (Mechanical Transport).REspondents<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (a) to take rank and precedence as if his appointment as substantive Captain bore date the thirtieth day of August, 1983.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) to forfeit one year service for the purpose of promotion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ANNOUNCEMENT OF SENTENCE <\/p>\n
     The court being reopened, the accused is brought before it.  The sentence is announced in open court, the sentence is announced as being subject to confirmation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Signed at Haldwani this Twenty fifth day of Dec., 1990.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.   The  petitioner’s  case  could be stated, shortly,  in  the  following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
3.   The  petitioner  joined the Army on the 30th of August, 1980.  In  the year  1988,  he  was  posted  in  5685  ASC  Bn  (MT).  On  the  night   of 18\/19.11.1988, he was to perform his duty of checking the night guards. The petitioner, while performing his duty, admonished Bhoop Singh, who was  one of  the sentries when he found Bhoop Singh missing from his place of  duty. Bhoop  Singh  turned up at his place of duty only after he was  called  out several times by the petitioner. The said Bhoop Singh appears to have  made a complaint that he was beaten up by the petitioner with a bamboo stick and the  petitioner caused injuries on the person Bhoop Singh.  The  petitioner was tried by the General Court Martial on the 25th of August, 1990.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The case set up by the prosecution was that on the night of 18\/19th of November,  1988 the petitioner was deputed on duty at Haldwani and  he  was checking  up  the night guards. At about 11.45 p.m. when  the  sepoy  Bhoop Singh,  who  was  to be on duty, was found near  the  Commanding  Officer’s Office,  greeted  the petitioner by saying ‘Jai Hind’, the  petitioner  got irritated and started beating up Bhoop Singh with a bamboo stick.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The  whole case was fabricated by Bhoop Singh with the  connivance  of his  Cop Cdr, Lt.Col.(TS) C.M.Sehgal as the petitioner took Bhoop Singh  to task  for  carrying away wood for Lt.Col.(TS) C.M.Sehgal from  Haldwani  to Meerut,  and  then to a place near Delhi. In other words, Bhoop  Singh  indulged  himself  in  illegal  activities  with  connivance  of  Lt.Col.(TS) C.M.Sehgal.  The  sentence  awarded by the General Court  Martial  was  not supported by any evidence and it is liable to be set aside. The  petitioner has put it on the ground of no evidence.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The  respondents filed counter-affidavit. The case put forward in  the counter-affidavit is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “1.  Sepoy\/Driver  (MT) Bhoop Singh of `A’ Copy was  on  bonafide Govt.  duty of Guard\/Sentry near main office on 18 Nov. 88  night for the time 2200 to 2400 hrs and from 0400 hrs to 0600 hrs. When Sepoy  MT Bhoop Singh was on first turn of duty between  2200  to 2400  hrs, Captain S.S.Mehta the then adjutant of this  battalion and also a duty officer for the period from 14 to 20 Nov. 88 came to check the night guards.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.   Sep\/MT   Bhoop  Singh  alleged  that  he   was   beaten   by Capt.S.S.Mehta by Bamboo stick and first on the night of 18  Nov. 88  during  his  sentry duty. Capt.S.S.Mehta  has  refuted  these allegations and has stated that it was a fabricated story. Sep\/MT Bhoop  Singh also reported this incidence to another  two  fellow sentries  but did not tell the Guard Commander. He reported  this incidence to his Company Havilder Major Kanhai Lal of ‘A’ Copy on completion  of his duty. Accordingly, the matter was reported  to Senior Junior Commissioned officer and company commander and  the
\n     individual was interviewed by company commander. As the individual had sustained injuries had swelling, and was also having  pain hence he was sent for Special sick report on 19 Nov. 88 at  about 1100 hrs. to section hospital, Haldwani where he was treated  and was  asked  to take complete bed rest for two days. He  was  also asked by medical officer to come again on 21 Nov. 88. He reported to  Section Hospital Haldwani where the medical officer  admitted him till 23 Nov. 1988 for treatment. He was transferred to  Military Hospital, Barielly on 24th Nov. 1988 for further  treatment.  As per the statement of Bhoop Singh two persons from the unit had visited  him at Military Hospital Bareilly asking him  to  change
\n     his statement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3. Sepoy Bhoop had suffered Mild Multiple blunt injuries in  left upper  arm, right upper thigh and right side upper abdomen  which were  seen by Capt.D.V.Mishra when he reported sick on 19th  Nov. 1988. The individual was given attend ‘C’ and further transferred to  Military  Hospital Barielly. Individual got  discharged  from Military  Hospital Barielly on 15 Dec. 1988 and was sent  on  one month part of Annual Leave on 16th Dec. 1988.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.  The  Court of Inquiry proceedings were sent to  Head  Quarter Meerut  Sub  Area and then by them to Head Quarter  UP  Area  for recommendations\/directions  of the General Officer Commanding  UP Area.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.   It is further stated in the counter that the Court of Inquiry Proceedings were sent to the Headquarters, Meerut and Brig.Cdr.Hardev Singh severe disciplinary action. It may be noticed that at the time when the  recommendation was made by the Brigadier, Meerut, Cantt., no oral evidence had been recorded.  The Brigadier, Meerut Cantt., on the 20th of February, 1989  had given the following opinion:\n<\/p>\n
    “1. I partially agree with the opinion of the Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. IC-37760A Capt.S.S.Mehta of 5685 ASC BN(MT) committed  assault and affray against No.13878852 Sep\/Dv Bhoop Singh of the same  Bn at approve 2345 h. on 18 Nov. 88. Though there are no eye witnesses  but the mere fact that the individual had sustained  injuries and informed his relieving sentry and the CMM ‘A’ Coy is an ample proof  that  the officer used physical force against  him.  Prima facie case, as such is established against Capt.S.S.Mehta.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.  IC 21274 Col.H.R.Soni, a Co.5685 ASC Bn (MT) was informed  of the  incident by MS 11294 Capt.DV Mishra No.IC MI Room, Sec  Hosp Haldwani  about  the incident. Col. Soni did not  take  immediate steps to inquire into the circumstances and institute an inquiry. His intention to hush up the case cannot be ruled out.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4. Capt.DV Mishra should have declared the case as a medico legal based upon the statement made by Sep\/Dvr Bhoop Singh in front  of him  on 19th Nov. 88. He was also negligent in  providing  proper medical aid wherein the case deteriorated and the individual  had to be admitted in the Sec.Hosp. No.21 Nov.88 and later  evacuated to  MH  Barailly on 24 Nov. 88 proper investigation  should  have been carried out by him and Sep\/Dvr.Bhoop Singh acquitted in  the  hosp. on reporting on 19 Nov. itself.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Recommendations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5. I recommend the following:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    a)   Severe   disciplinary  action  should   be   taken   against Capt.S.S.Mehta  for  using physical force against  Sep\/Dvr  Bhoop Singh on 18 Nov. 88.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     b) Adm action should be taken against Col.H.K.Soni for not instituting immediate inquiry when the case was reported to him on  19 Nov. 88.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     c)  Capt.  DV Mishra be warned for his  negligence  in  providing prompt medical care to Sep\/Dvr.Bhoop Singh and not declaring it as a medical legal case.Directions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.I direct that injuries sustained by No.13878852 Sep\/Dvr.Bhoop Singh of 5685 ASC Bn (MT) be treated as attributed to mil service in peace area.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   It  is, shortly, stated in the counter-affidavit that Bhoop Singh  was beaten  up  by Capt.S.S.Mehta with a bamboo stick. Cap.S.S.Mehta  tried  to forcibly  interfere in the performance of duties of the Bhoop Singh  and  a case under Section 33 C of the Army Act had been made out. Shri Bhoop Singh had  appeared  as witness No.7 and he had not given any such  statement  as alleged  by the petitioner. Lt.Col.C.M.Sehgal appeared before the Court  of Inquiry on the 24th of January, 1989 but he was not examined.\n<\/p>\n
9.   In the General Court Martial, 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution  and petitioner examined four witnesses, including himself.  In  the light of submissions made by the parties, it has become necessary to  probe into  the evidence for the purpose of finding out whether the  decision  of the  General  Court Martial could be sustained or it is not  based  on  any evidence.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The complainant, Sepoy DV.Bhoop Singh was examined as PW-1.  According to him, he was on sentry duty between 22.00 hrs. and 01.00 hrs. and he  was carrying  out  the sentry duties in the verandahs. At about 22.45  hrs.  he heard  some  one shouting for sentry from the rear side of  the  Commanding Officer’s  Office and he found Cap.S.S.Mehta, who was the duty  officer  on 18.11.1988. On seeing him, he paid his compliments and said ‘Jai Hind’.  He did  not  like the way in which the witness challenged him.  Cap.Mehta  got irritated  and snatched the bamboo stick which the witness was holding  and attacked  him  and he pushed the bamboo stick into his  stomach.  He  would admit  that  he finished his duty and also he drove his van.  According  to him,  Company  Havildar  Major Kanahai Lal took him  to  Company  Senior,Nb Sub.Sunder  Singh  to whom he narrated the incident. He was  taken  to  the Company  Commander,  Lt.Col.C.M.Sehgal  and he gave  instructions  for  the
\nwitness reporting sick. He deposed:\n<\/p>\n
     “I  was examined by Captain D.V.Mishra, Medical Officer  Incharge Section Hospital Haldwani who asked me as to how I had  sustained the  injuries  on my body, to which again I  narrated  the  above incident that took place on the night of 18\/19 Nov 88. He  thereafter, administered medicines and gave me attend `C’ for 48  hrs. I returned back to the Company lines. I again reported sick on 21 Nov  88 and on examination, Captain D V Mishra,  Medical  Officer  Incharge  Section Hospital, Haldwani admitted me in  the  Section Hospital, Haldwani.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    On  23  Nov  88 at about 1000 hrs Subedar Major  Khem  Singh  and Nb\/Sub  Ved  Prakash of our unit came and met me in  the  Section Hospital  and  wanted me to get X-rayed in civil at  Haldwani  to which  I refused initially and later agreed after  persuasion.  I was  X-rayed in Civil on 23 Nov 88. On 24 Nov 88, I was  referred to  Military Hospital Bareilly for further treatment. On  25  Nov 88,  Nb\/Sub Ved Prakash met me at Military Hospital Bareilly  and  wanted me to state that, I had a fall from a vehicle and hide the truth of being beaten up by the accused. I refused, to do so, and
\n     sent away the above said JCO. I also gave my statement to CMP  on 25  Nov  88. I was hospitalised for 22 days. I returned  back  to unit  on 15 Dec 88 and I requested for leave due to  my  domestic reasons  and proceeded on Advance of Annual Leave for  one  month from  16 Dec 88 onwards. On recall, I reported to the unit on  26
\n     Dec 88 and was interviewed by Colonel H.K.Soni, Commanding  Officer  5685  ASC Battalion on 27 Dec 88. During the  interview  the Commanding  Officer, asked me as to how I had proceeded on  leave and called me ‘Badmash’ and a ‘Goonda’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The witness volunteers to state before the Court, that on 18  Nov 88,  when the accused visited his place of duty between 2200  hrs and 0001 hrs, he (the accused) was smelling of liquor.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.  In the cross-examination by the petitioner, the witness would state:\n<\/p>\n
    “It  is not correct, to suggest that while, I was  performing  my duty  between  2200 hrs and 0001 hrs on 18\/19 Nov 88, I  was  not present in the Verandah of the Commanding Officer’s office, when, I  heard  some one calling, `Sentry’ – `Sentry’ or  that,  I  was somewhere at the rear of the office.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is correct, to say that if, the lights are ON, then the person standing  in  the Commanding officer’s Verandah will be  able  to see,  any person approaching from the Canteen side, up to a  distance of 30 to 40 yards in the night time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It  is  not correct, to suggest that when I heard the  shouts  of ‘Sentry’  – ‘Sentry” for the first time, I was not  standing  in-front of the Commanding Officer’s office and that, on hearing the shout for the second time, I came running, from the back side and met the accused, in front of the Commanding Officer’s Office.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     No  conversation, whatsoever, took place between me and  the  accused when I met him at the time of the alleged incident.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It  is  incorrect  to say that the accused did not  abuse  me  in obscene terms as I have stated before the court. It is correct to say that, the obscene abuses mentioned by me were not specifically told by me in my earlier statements.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.  This  shows  that the witness had not been telling us  the  truth.  He would also state:\n<\/p>\n
      “It  is correct, to say that I did not mention, about  the  Guard Book, falling down from my hand, while the accused was beating me in my previous statements.”\n<\/p>\n
13.  This  is an important factor to be noticed. He said that he  had  this guard book with him at the time when Cap.S.S.Mehta called him. This is only to show how far the witness is able to give a true version of the incident.\n<\/p>\n
The  witness was asked about the length and the width of the  bamboo  stick and  why the petitioner had not been able to produce the bamboo stick.  The witness would state:\n<\/p>\n
     “It  is correct, to say that there are three high wattage  street lights between the Quarter Guard and the barrier.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It  is  incorrect, to say that there are no trees on  the  office side  of  the road between the Quarter Guard and  the  Commanding Officer’s office.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  length of the Bamboo stick, I was carrying while  performing the  night sentry duty was about 6 to 7 feet in length, about  1-1\/2 inches thick and was a solid one. The bamboo stick used to be procured,   under  own  arrangement  by  the  guard  and   handed over\/taken  over by the sentries on relief. The distance  between myself and the accused while he was beating me, was about 4 feet. I  was  beaten with the bamboo stick with a sufficient  force.  I did,  try  to  save myself from the beating my  moving  left  and right,  but I did not, run away to save myself. I did  not  raise any  alarm while I, was being beaten up nor shout for  any  help. The accused was holding the bamboo stick from one end.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.  He  would  state  that “I received about 20 blows in  total  with  the bamboo stick\/kicks\/punches from the accused”. He would admit:\n<\/p>\n
      “I  left  the bamboo stick in question in the vehicle  where  the Sentries use to sleep, off the duty hours after completion of  my duty  at  0600 hrs on 19 Nov 88. I did not, show the  above  said bamboo stick to any body to whomsoever, I reported the incident.”\n<\/p>\n
15.  In  a  way he would admit the part played  by  Mr.Sehgal,  Lt.Colonel, Officer Commanding, he states:-\n<\/p>\n
      “It is incorrect to suggest that I was asked by my Company  Officer  Commanding to give a written complaint over the incident  on 19  Nov 88. Generally any grievance of a Jawan is put up  to  the Officer Commanding through a Business Book. In the instant  case, the  written complaint submitted by me to the Officer  Commanding was  through  Naik Durai of `A’ Company, who was working  in  the  Company  Office. I did not, inform Naik Sorte, who was  my  Guard Commander  and sleeping in the vehicle with other  Sentries  over the  beating.  I did not complain over the above beating  by  the
\n     accused to the Guard Commander as the accused was intoxicated. It did not, occur to my mind that, I should have reported the matter to  the Guard Commander, immediately after the incident. I  could not, report the matter to the Guard Commander at 0600 hours on 19 Nov 88 as I did not, find him in the vehicle.”\n<\/p>\n
16.  He would admit that he had not complained to the Co.Hav.Major at  7.30 a.m.  and not he did meet the senior JC around 7.45 a.m. on 19.11.1988.  He would deny a suggestion made to him about his driving the heavy vehicle and
\nwould state:\n<\/p>\n
      “It is incorrect, to suggest that between 0715 hrs and 0745  hrs, I  was driving, vehicle LPT 6.5 ton 80D-35255E from  Unit  Repair Organisation to Rail Head Supply Depot, Haldwani.”\n<\/p>\n
17.  He would admit:\n<\/p>\n
      “With  great pain, I drove the vehicle 6.5 ton 80D-35255E in  the morning  of  19  Nov 88 as a good soldier for  performance  of  a duty.”\n<\/p>\n
18.  He  would also state that “it is incorrect to suggest that I  was  not sitting  on  the  bed inside the vehicle at 04.00 hrs  on  19.11.1988  with blanket wrapped on him. I may have forgotten to state that I was sitting on my  bed when I gave my statement at the Summary of Evidence on  23.2.1990”. He would further state “at 02.00 hrs on 19.11.1988 when L\/Nk Pyare Lal went for  his  duty, I was awake, but I did not tell him about the  incident  of beating by the accused”. That Company Commander, Lt.Colonel, C.M.Sehgal met me in the hospital, it is submitted by the witness. He would state:\n<\/p>\n
      “I gave a statement in the Court of Inquiry. In the statement,  I had  mentioned  that my Company OC met me  at  Military  Hospital BAreilly after 30 Nov 88. Now, I do not remember, exactly whether my Company OC, met me after 30 Nov 88, however, in all, my Company OC, met me twice, while I was at Military Hospital Bareilly. I did not mention to my Company OC, when he met me on 27\/28 Nov  88 that two persons had come to Military Hospital Bareilly on 26 Nov 88,  and that I suspected that they wanted to kill me. I, had  in fact,  mentioned about the above mentioned incident of 26 Nov  88 to  my Company OC, after 30 Nov 88, when he came to meet  me  for the  third time. There is no particular reason as to why, I,  did
\n     not tell my Company OC, on the incident of 26 Nov 88, when he met me on 27\/28 Nov 88.”\n<\/p>\n
19.  This would clearly show the interest of Mr.C.M.Sehgal, Lt.Colonel,  in the matter which has not been explained by the prosecution and he was  also not  examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. But  witness would  admit that Sepoy R.B.Singh, of B Company was on night duty at  guard quarter on 18.11.1988. He would depose:\n<\/p>\n
      “It  is incorrect, to suggest that during the second week of  Jul 89, when the Summary of Evidence was being recorded by Major M  S Kanyal of Station Headquarters, Haldwani, I had met Sep R B Singh in the workshop and had suggested to him that he should also give a statement in the Summary of Evidence, that, on the  intervening  night  of 18\/19 Nov 88, the accused, had also abused  and  beaten him up and was intoxicated. The witness further says that he  had  met  Sepoy  R  B  Singh in the workshop  during  the  above  said period.”\n<\/p>\n
20.  This  evidently shows the mental attitude of the witness in trying  to wriggle out of the situation.\n<\/p>\n
21.  He  was  further cross-examined about the bamboo stick and  about  his reporting sick and he would state:\n<\/p>\n
     “It  is a fact that, I left the bamboo stick in question, in  one of the vehicles in the MT Park and whatever I deposed before this honourable court on 04 Sep 90, in this regard was not correct.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     I  was  not  asked by any of the Superior Officers  to  whom,  I, reported about the beating by the accused, to show them, the said bamboo stick.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     I  forgot to get my name entered in the sick report book, on  the morning of 19 Nov 88 and I did not, go in the normal sick report, though, I was aware of the procedure for reporting sick. It is  a normal  practice, in the unit that the last sentry of  the  night guard  deposits the guard book in the Subedar Major’s  office  on completion of the duty.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     I was aware of the fact that the sick report book of the unit, is also kept in the Subedar Major’s office.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
22.  He would admit:\n<\/p>\n
      “Sepoy Satpal Singh of my Company, had informed me on 16 Dec  88, that I was required to go for Commanding Officer’s interview.”\n<\/p>\n
23.  He would at once say:\n<\/p>\n
      “I was not told by anyone that, I was required to go for Commanding Officer’s interview on 16 Dec 88, but was told to go to  SM’s office. I was not aware that, advance of leave can only be  sanctioned by the Commanding Officer.”\n<\/p>\n
24.  The  witness has not been consistent in any one of the aspects  spoken to by him. He would state:\n<\/p>\n
     “The  distance  between my place of duty and to the  night  guard vehicle, where Sentries were sleeping, was about 60 yards.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     If  any one shouts for me, from the Quarter Guard to my place  of duty, I could hear him at night.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The accused came to my place of duty and left from there on foot.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
   The  accused was performing the duties of Adjutant during Nov  88 and I knew him since Jan 88.\n<\/p>\n
     I never came in contact with the accused prior to 18 Nov 88.  The duty NCO at the out gate of the unit on 19 Nov 88 in the  morning hours,  was Nk Swamy of Headquarters Company of our unit.  I  did not  raise any alarm, while the accused was beating me, as I  had committed a mistake.”\n<\/p>\n
25.  He would state “in spite of my asking the accused as to what were  the reasons for beating me, he never gave me any reason”. This shows the  artificial nature of the evidence of this witness.\n<\/p>\n
26.  The PW-2 in his chief examination would state:\n<\/p>\n
      “My  first duty, was from 1800 hrs to 2000 hrs of 18 Nov  88  and 0001  hrs to 02000 hrs of 19 Nov 88. Sepoy Bhoop Singh,  here  in after referred to as PW-1, woke me up at 0001 hrs and handed over the charge of duty to me. While handing over, the said charge, he told me that he was beaten up by the accused and cautioned me  to be alert on duty. I did not ask him the details of the beating by the accused.”\n<\/p>\n
27.  In his cross-examination, PW-2 would state:\n<\/p>\n
      “It  is incorrect, to suggest that PW-1 did not inform me,  about the incident involving him and accused, on the night of 18\/19 Nov 88,  when he came to wake me up for my duty and also that  I  was told by Company CHM\/Company Senior JCO, to say what, I have  said relating to the incident.”\n<\/p>\n
28.  In his answer to the question put up by the Court, he would state <\/p>\n
”  During Nov 88, I was with `A’ Company. I did not ask PW-1,  as to the details of the incident on taking over duty from him as I, had to go immediately and carry out my duty. Also, I never  made, an  attempt to find out from PW-1, over his involvement with  the accused subsequently.\n<\/p>\n
     I  cannot, definitely say whether, the guard commander  Nk  Sorte and  PW-1  were sleeping, however, I found them  lying  in  their beds.\n<\/p>\n
     The  bamboo stick, described by me, was about 1 to  1-1\/2  inches thick  and I, do not remember now, whether it was a solid one  or not.\n<\/p>\n
     The distance between my place of duty to the place where the duty vehicle was parked was about 50 yards.\n<\/p>\n
     When I was performing duty, I could hear anybody shouting for  me from the vehicle, where we slept.\n<\/p>\n
     I  cannot  hear anybody shouting for me from the  Quarter  Guard, while performing duty at Commanding Officer’s office.\n<\/p>\n
     Usually,  the  stick carried by the night  sentries  is  procured under  own arrangement and is left in any of the vehicles in  the MT park, after completion of night duty.\n<\/p>\n
     It  did  not occur to my mind that, I should have spoken  of,  or informed of the involvement of PW-1 and the accused on the  night of 18\/19 Nov 88 or any time later to any one.”\n<\/p>\n
29.  From  the evidence of PW-2, it is clear that he was not aware  of  the incident  and he had been an obliging witness. His evidence  is  artificial and no reliance can be placed on his deposition.\n<\/p>\n
30.  L\/Nk  Pyare  Lal was examined as PW-3. In the  chief  examination,  he would state:\n<\/p>\n
      “I was on night duty on 18 Nov 88 along with L\/Nk H B Gurung, Sep Bhoop Singh and Nk D V Sorte was our Guard Commander at  Commanding Officer’s office. My first duty was from 2000 hrs to 2200 hrs and  my second duty was from 0200 hrs to 0400 hrs on 19  Nov  88. After 0400 hrs, on completion of my duty, I went to wake up Sepoy Driver Bhoop Singh, herein after called as PW-1, to hand over the said  duty. I saw PW-1 sitting in his bed with a blanket  wrapped inside  the body of the LPT, where the night guard  sleeps  while not on duty. I asked PW-1 as to, why was he awake? PW-1, told me,
\n     that  his whole body was aching and that he was beaten up by  the accused  while he was on duty between 2200 hrs and 0001  hrs.  On inquiry  by me, PW-1 told me that the accused beat him up, as  he did  not follow the `challenge’ procedure. Thereafter,  I  handed over the charge of my duty to PW-1 and he left for his duty.”\n<\/p>\n
31.  In the cross-examination, he would depose:\n<\/p>\n
 “During Nov 88, I was posted to 3 Platoon of `A’ Company of  5685 ASC  Battalion. All the personnel, detailed for night guard  duty at Commanding Officer’s office belong to 3 Platoon of `A’  Company, 5685 ASC Battalion (MT). When PW-2 came to wake me up for  my
\n     duty at 0200 hrs on 19 Nov 88, I saw the guard commander Nk Sorte and PW-1 in their beds, lying covered up with blankets.  However, I,  cannot  definitely,  say whether they were  asleep  or  lying awake.  PW-1 did not speak to me, about the incident at 0200  hrs on 19 Nov 88. PW-1 did not show me, any injuries on his person at 0400 hrs on 19 Nov 88, when I woke him up for duty. PW-1 told  me that his body was aching, but never said, that he could not carry out  the  duty at 0400 hrs. I did not mention,  that  PW-1,  complained of pain in his body in my statement given at the  Summary
\n     of Evidence on 24 Feb 90.\n<\/p>\n
     I,  did  not mention, about the involvement of PW-1 and  the  accused,  to  the  guard  commander  Nk  Sorte\/Platoon  Hav\/Platoon JCO\/CHM\/Company  Senior JCO\/Company OC, on 19 Nov 88, or any  day later,  about  the incident nor did any of  the  above  personnel mentioned ever enquire from me over the incident. I was  performing the duties of platoon munshi. I had informed PW-1, on 18  Nov 88 about his detainment for proceeding to Rail Head Supply Depot, Haldwani on 19 Nov 88. PW-1 did not say that he would not be able to  take the vehicle to RHSD, Haldwani on 19 Nov 88. At 0400  hrs on  19 Nov 88, I, did not consider it, necessary to suggest  that he should ask for a change of duty. I was aware of the fact  that  PW-1  performed his duty to RHSD, Haldwani in the morning  of  19 Nov 88. I did not enter the RHSD duty in the car diary of  PW-1’s vehicle. I do not know, who filled the said duty in the car diary of PW-1’s vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
     I  handed over the bamboo stick also, while handing over duty  to PW-1.  The said bamboo stick was about 5 to 5-1\/2 feet  long  and about 1-1\/2 inches thick, and I do not exactly remember, whether, it was a solid one or not.\n<\/p>\n
     I  did not hear anybody, shouting\/crying, while, I  was  sleeping between 2200 hrs and 0001 hrs on 18\/19 Nov 88.\n<\/p>\n
     It  is incorrect, to suggest that PW-1, did not inform  me  about the incident involving him and the accused on the night of  18\/19 Nov 88, when he went to wake me up for duty and also, that I, was told by Company CHM\/Senior JCO, to say what I have said, relating to the incident.”\n<\/p>\n
32.  In his answer to the question put up by the Court, he would depose:-\n<\/p>\n
     “I on my own, did not look for the injuries on the person of  PW-1.  I  also  did not ask PW-1, whether he  required  any  medical treatment or help.\n<\/p>\n
     I did not see any abnormality in PW-1, while he was going for his duty  at  0400 hrs on 19 Nov 88. I did not hear or  notice  PW-1, groaning due to pain between 0001 hrs and 0200 hrs on 19 Nov 88.”\n<\/p>\n
33.  Mr.Kanhai Lal was examined as PW-4. In his chief examination, he would state
\n      “I was performing the duties of Company Havildar Major of `A’ Coy 5685  ASC  Battalion (MT). At about 0730 hrs on 19 Nov 88  I  saw Sep\/Dvr (MT) Bhoop Singh, herein after referred to as PW-1, of my Company  in the Company lines. I asked PW-1 as to why he did  not go  for weapon cleaning. PW-1 informed me, that he  had  returned from  night duty and that he was not feeling well to go  for  the weapon cleaning as he was beaten up by the accused, while he  was on  duty the previous night. PW-1 requested me to arrange for  an interview of the Company Commander, Lt Col C M Sehgal.”\n<\/p>\n
34.  In his cross-examination, he would state:\n<\/p>\n
     “PW-1, did not express his inability to perform the morning duty, pertaining to taking his LPT vehicle to RHSD, Haldwani, to me  on 19 Nov 88.\n<\/p>\n
     PW-1 did not tell me at about 0730 hrs on 19 Nov 88, that he  had already, performed a duty, pertaining to loading of LPT in  RHSD, Haldwani.”\n<\/p>\n
35.  In his answer to the question put up by the Court, he would depose:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Between  0730  hrs and 0830 hrs on 19 Nov 88, PW-1  was  present throughout in the Company lines. When, I met PW-1, for the  first time  in  the Company lines on 19 Nov 88 at 0730  hrs,  PW-1  was alone.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     During Nov 88, winter uniform was being worn by all personnel  of the unit, which included, angular shirt and a Jersey over it.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     When  I met PW-1, at 0730 hrs on 19 Nov 88, he was sitting  on  a charpoy, wearing overall combination with sleeves rolled down. I, did  not, get to the basic details of investigation  like  asking for the:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) bamboo stick with which the accused beat up PW-1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) to inspect the injuries sustained by PW-1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  to enquire other sentries\/guard commander who were on  night duty  alongwith  PW-1 about the incident, and I have  no  reason, whatsoever, to give to the court for the above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     I was throughout with ‘A’ Company of 5685 ASC Battalion during my tenure in this unit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     I was not given any instructions by Company Senior JCO\/Company OC to  produce  the bamboo stick or arrange for  all  the  witnesses connected to the incident, nor, I had suggested the same to them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     I  did not visit PW-1 in Section Hospital, Haldwani  or  Military Hospital Bareilly.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
36.  Subedar Sunder Singh was examined as PW-5. In his chief examined as PW In his chief examination he would state
\n      “On 19 Nov 88 at about 0800 hrs I was informed by Company  Havil-dar Major (now Nb\/Sub) Kanhai Lal, hereinafter referred to as PW-4, that Sep\/Dvr Bhoop Singh, hereinafter referred to as PW-1, was beaten up by the accused with a bamboo stick, while he was carrying out the sentry duty, on the night of 18 Nov 88 at  Commanding Officer’s office. I, directed PW-4 to bring PW-1 to me. I  called PW-1  and  enquired from him about the whole incident and  I  was  told  that  while  PW-1 was performing  his  duty  at  Commanding Officer’s  office,  the accused being the duty officer  came  for checking the Guard and beat him with a bamboo stick as he did not challenge  him. I noticed swelling on the left forearm of  PW-1. PW-1  requested me to arrange for an interview with  the  Company Commander  Lt Col C.M.Sehgal, which I arranged. The Company  Commander  after interviewing PW-1 in my presence, instructed me  to take PW-1 to the Battalion Subedar Major. I took PW-1 to  Subedar Sheodan Singh who was officiating as Subedar Major. Offs  Subedar Major  enquired from PW-1 on the overall incident.  Offs  Subedar Major  instructed  me to take back PW-1 to the Company  lines.  I reported  the above to the Company Commander Lt Col C  M  Sehgal. The  Company Commander then directed me to send PW-1  on  special
\n     sick report and accordingly PW-1 was sent on special sick report. On  return of PW-1 from MT Room of Section Hospital  Haldwani  he informed me that he was given medicine and attend `C” for 48  hrs and I informed the same to the Company Commander.”\n<\/p>\n
37.  In his cross-examination, he would state:\n<\/p>\n
     “PW-4,  reported  me about the incident involving  PW-1  and  the accused  between  0745 hrs and 0800 hrs on 19 Nov  88.  PW-1  was brought to me at 0810 hrs and I, took PW-1, to Company OC at 0615 hrs.<\/p>\n
     I, enquired PW-1, as to how, he was beaten up by the accused,  to which  he  replied, that since he did not  follow  the  challenge procedure and instead said ‘Jai – Hind’, the accused beat him up.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     I enquired PW-1, as to his injuries he had sustained, to which he showed his left upper arm and also stated, that he was beaten  up by the accused by a bamboo stick. I, saw the swelling on his left arm  stretching from lower portion of the upper arm extending  up to the upper portion of the fore arm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     I, did not investigate, as to the whereabouts of the bamboo stick alleged to have been used by the accused to beat up PW-1, nor  I, enquired  from any of the sentries on duty alongwith  PW-1  about the incident.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     I did not ask PW-1, whether he had reported over the incident  to the Guard Commander\/Duty NCO\/Duty JCO\/Platoon Hav\/Platoon Cdr.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
38.  The Doctor, who is stated to have treated PW-1, was examined as  PW-6. In his chief-examination he would state:\n<\/p>\n
      “On  19  Nov 88 around 1200 hrs one Sepoy Driver Bhoop  Singh  of 5685  ASC  Bn (MT) Haldwani was brought to me on a  Special  Sick Report, while, I was performing the duties, of Officerin-Charge, Section Hospital, Haldwani. Sepoy Driver Bhoop Singh, hereinafter referred  to as PW-1, complained of pain in his left  upper  arm, right thigh and right side of the abdomen. According to PW-1  the above  injuries were sustained by him, due to beating by  Captain
\n     Shiv  Singh Mehta of his unit, while he was performing the  night duty on 18 Nov 88.”\n<\/p>\n
39.  He would further state:\n<\/p>\n
“I  conducted a thorough examination of PW-1 and noted  that  the general condition of the patient was good and that he was able to walk  without any obvious abnormality. The local  examination  of the injured parts of the body revealed the following:-\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  A small swelling at outer aspect of lower end of left  upper arm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) Mild tenderness on anterior aspect of the right thigh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  Mild tenderness in upper right quadrant of abdomen,  without any sign of internal organ damage.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Other systems,ms of the body were within normal limits.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     I diagnosed the patient as a case of multiple blunt injuries. All injuries appeared to be mild in severity.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  nature of injuries mentioned by me above pertaining to  PW-1 could be caused due to the following:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) By beating with a stick or a blunt object.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) By punches.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) By kicks.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  injuries sustained by PW-1, were fresh and could  have  been sustained between few hours to twenty four hours.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
40.  In the cross-examination, the Doctor would depose:\n<\/p>\n
      “I  asked PW-1, as to why he did not come on special sick  report on the night of 18\/19 Nov 88, or in the normal sick report in the morning  of 19 Nov 88, to which PW-1, did not give any reply.  As far as, I remember, PW-1 was brought to me by a JCO from ASC.”\n<\/p>\n
41.  He would state:-\n<\/p>\n
      “the  injuries  noticed by me had given in Exhibit  `N’  did  not warrant me to admit PW-1 in Section Hospital, Haldwani, or  refer him to Military Hospital, Bareilly”.\n<\/p>\n
42.  He would further state:\n<\/p>\n
      “It is possible, that a person may get an injury on his left arm, if  he falls, while running\/walking, on his left side on a  blunt object  like  a round stone, when, the left arm is close  to  the body.”\n<\/p>\n
43.  About the abdomen injuries, the witness would state:\n<\/p>\n
      The injuries on the abdomen of PW-1’s person were mild in  nature and  cannot be commented upon as to their nature. A blunt  object like a stick being thrust repeatedly with force could have caused more serious injury.”\n<\/p>\n
44.  The doctor also would state:\n<\/p>\n
      “The  three injuries on the person of PW-1, examined by me  could be  due to possible self `infliction’, if he had sufficient  reasons  for  the same, as these were all accessible  parts  of  the body.”\n<\/p>\n
45.  In his answer to the question put up by the Court, he would depose:-\n<\/p>\n
      “The  bamboo  stick, with which PW-1, was alleged  to  have  been beaten up by the accused was not brought to me by PW-1, or by the JCO, who brought him to me, nor I had asked for the same.”\n<\/p>\n
46.  Mr.Sheodan Singh, who was posted at Battalion 5685 during March,  1987 and who had proceeded on pension on 1st March, 1989, was examined as  PW-7. He  would state that on the 19th of November, 1988 while he was  performing his duties, PW-1 was brought to him by Subedar Sunder Singh and he said:\n<\/p>\n
      “I  asked  PW-5 as to why did PW-1, want to go  on  special  sick report.  On that, I was told that PW-1 was beaten up by  the  accused  who is now sitting in the court and I identify him  to  be IC-37760A Captain Shiv Singh Mehta who was performing the  duties of  Adjutant  5685 ASC Battalion. On the night of  18\/19  Nov  88 when,  I  asked PW-5 as to why, a report to that effect  was  not given to me either at the night of 18\/19 Nov 88 or on the morning of  19 Nov 88. I also asked PW-1 who was wearing uniform  whether  he  had sustained any injury and whether he wanted to go on special  sick  report  to which he did not give any  reply.  I  then instructed  PW-5 to deal with the case and sent PW-1 back to  the Company.  I went to report over the above to the accused. When  I returned  back to my office, I was told by my  Battalion  Munshi, that  the special sick report book was already taken  by  Company Havildar  Major Kanshi Lal (PW-4). PW-1 did not show me  any  injuries sustained by him.”\n<\/p>\n
47.  The  prosecution sought permission to treat this witness  hostile  and the  Presiding Officer of the Court declared him hostile. This does not  in any  way  affect the ultimate conclusion by me in this case.  Therefore,  I refrain myself from going into the manner in which the witness was declared hostile ignoring the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
48.  Mr.R.B.Singh  was examined as PW-8. In the chief-examination he  would sate:-\n<\/p>\n
     “I  was performing the Quarter Guard duty on the night  of  18\/19 Nov 88. My duty was from 2230 hrs to 0030 hrs.<\/p>\n
     At  about 2345 hrs, I heard someone shouting for Sentry from  the barrier next to the Commanding Officer’s office. I saw the person shouting  for  the Sentry, when he approached front side  of  the CO’s  office. I recognised him to be the accused. I saw  the  accused after. I heard some one shouting for Sentry and on reaching the  Sentry post of the Quarter Guard. On seeing the  accused,  I turned  to my place of duty and also over heard  someone  running from the rear side of the Commanding Officer’s office. I, immediately  turned again to see, what was happening. I saw one  sentry  standing opposite the accused. I heard the accused angrily uttering words to the effect “Idiot, bloody… Tum So reha tha,  kahan
\n     soya tha….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     I  did  not, hear the reply of the Sentry to the  accused  nor  I heard the conversation that took place between the Sentry and the accused. The accused thereafter came towards the Quarter Guard.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Meanwhile, Hav Balakrishnan, the duty NCO, also came on the  road from the side of Second-in-Command’s office. Then the accused and the duty NCO came to the quarter Guard.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
49.  The  Presiding Officer inspected the place of occurrence and what  was noticed could be extracted in the following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The accused with his defense counsel and defending officer,  the prosecutor  with his prosecution counsel, the court, Judge  Advocate were present to view the place along with the witness  under examination.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  The witness states, that he was holding a rifle  and  moving in front of the quarter Guard between two black lines drawn on the cemented floor.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  On  hearing the shouts for Sentry, he points out  the  place where he moved.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  court observe that within the Quarter Guard premises to  the right  extreme  corner near the fence, he points out  the  place, from where he saw the accused standing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  The  witness further states and shows that  having  moved  3 paces from the Sentry post to the triangular cement platform  and on  the hearing, somebody running from the rear side of the  main office again turned and moved towards the sentry post from  where he  saw the accused standing, which is 106 paces of the  witness. The court observe it to be 85 yards.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (d) The witness points out that the Sentry was facing towards his side and the accused was standing in front of him and he could see only his back.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e)  The witness also points out the place where he had seen  the duty NCO approaching the road.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (f)  The witness states and points out that the entrance gate  of Quarter  Guard was closed and the accused and the NCO were  challenged  by  him  from inside the gate. Also he  states  that  the
\n     accused  and the duty NCO did not come inside the  Quarter  guard
\n     and returned from outside only.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  witness points out the place where he had seen the duty  NCO with a red sash over his uniform. The witness measures 63 pace of him,  from the main gate of Quarter guard to the place  where  he saw the duty NCO.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Court observe the distance to be 60 yards.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The witness further shows two street lights (mercury  fluorescent 2 feet single tube) between the Quarter guard to the place, where  he had seen the duty NCO.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (g)  The witness measures 100 paces of him from the main gate  of Quarter  guard opposite to the Commanding Officers  main  office. The court observes the distance to be 100 yards.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  witness points out the positions of the Sentry and  the  accused  as seen by him. The distance between the accused  and  the Sentry was about 3 paces as pointed out by him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (h)  The  witness  points out a street  light  (fluorescent  tube light)  opposite  to Commanding Officer’s office  measuring  four feet.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (j) The witness demonstrates as to the running of Sentry from the rear  side of the Commanding Officer’s office and points out  the place where he saw the Sentry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (k)  The distance measured by the witness from the main  gate  to the place where he had seen the Sentry on Duty for the first time is 130 paces i.e. 105 yards.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  The witness points out and states, no street  light  between Commanding Officer’s office and the barrier. There was a light at the barrier (four feet fluorescent tube facing other side of  the road).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The witness further states that the bulbs in the Varandah of  the Commanding Officer’s and the Adjutant’s office were also switched on during that time.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
50.  In the cross-examination by the defense counsel, he would state:-\n<\/p>\n
     “I  was also on duty from 0430 hours to 0630 hours on 19 Nov  88. The  Sentry who was abused by the accused on night of 18  Nov  88 also came for his morning tea in the Quarter guard and that  time I came to know that he was Sepoy (Driver) MT Bhoop Singh (PW-1).\n<\/p>\n
     I  enquired from PW-1 as to why the accused was shouting  at  him the previous night to which he, replied that since he was  sleeping  in the LPT parked in the rear side of the LPT and came  running towards the accused on his shouting for Sentry.”\n<\/p>\n
51.  He would admit that PW-1 did not tell\/show him any injuries  sustained by him. He would further state:-\n<\/p>\n
     “During  Jul  89, when I had taken my vehicle  bearing  last  two numbers 80L to workshop for repairing\/fitting of engine, PW-1 had met me and suggested to me that whatever statement I gave in  the Court  of Inquiry, should be changed and now state that  the  accused had also abused and beaten me on the night of 18\/19 Nov  88 to which, I told him that I will not give a false statement.\n<\/p>\n
     While, I was admitted in Section Hospital, Haldwani between 12-26 Aug 89, PW-1 came to me again to give a false statement over  the incident failing which, threatened with dire consequences,  which I refused.”\n<\/p>\n
52.  The prosecution did not seek any permission to treat this witness also as  hostile.  The Court had put a lot of questions  without  realising  its function under the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872. The questions  put by the Court would also bring out facts against the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
53.  Mr.V.V.Cavan  was  examined  as PW-9. He has  spoken  about  the  duty officer’s report which was marked as Ex.-‘R’ and nothing turns on it.\n<\/p>\n
54.  Shri  N.S.Nagarkoti  was examined as PW-10. According to him,  he  was serving  in  the Unit w.e.f.January, 1989 and he would refer to  Mark  Ex.S which was the statement given by the petitioner in the summary evidence. He does not speak about any fact and that is not necessary for the purpose  of deciding  the question whether there is evidence to sustain the  conclusion by  the Court. It would appear that on the date of the further  hearing  of the matter, statement of the petitioner\/accused was admitted as Ex.-‘B’ and questions were put to him by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
55.  Sub.Maj.  &  Hony.Cap.Khen  Singh was examined as  DW-1.  Subedar  Ved Prakash  was examined as DW-2. It is not necessary to refer to  their  evidence because once the prosecution has not made out his case, it is  wholly unnecessary  to refer to the evidence of the witness examined by the  petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
56.  One  crucial fact to be noticed is that it was introduced at the  time of  the trial that the petitioner was drunk at the time of the  occurrence. There  is absolutely no evidence to support this evidence. The  proceedings of  the Court had failed to conform to the basic principles under the  Evidence  Act,  1872 before coming to any conclusion on the  materials  placed before  it.  From a reading of the evidence of PWs, it is clear  that  Shri Sehgal had played a very important role in bringing out the situation.\n<\/p>\n
57.  An  analysis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses  would  show that no offence has been made out against the petitioner. PW-1 admits  that the  Military  did not provide him with bamboo stick. He was  not  able  to explain as to how did he come to have a bamboo stick at that time.  According to the PW-1, the petitioner forcibly snatched bamboo stick from him and he  beaten  him, and it is admitted by PW-1, that he took back  the  bamboo stick. That mysterious bamboo stick has not been produced by PW-1.  Immediately after the alleged beating, the witness, PW-1, had not done  anything. He had done is duty by driving a heavy vehicle and he had a motive, at  the instance  of Mr.Sehgal, to file a case on the petitioner. PW-1 would  state on 23.2.1990 “bamboo stick for night guard is not got from the battalion. I had arranged it at my own”.\n<\/p>\n
58.  The proposition of law is clearly laid down by the Supreme Court  that the  Court can examine the records to find out whether the finding or  conclusion  by the disciplinary authority is supported by evidence on  record. The  Court can nalyse the evidence, to come to the conclusion whether  the findings  are supported by evidence on record. The Court is  not  concerned with the sufficiency of evidence. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the  finding or the conclusion is perverse and it is not based on any  evidence, the Court can interfere. In this case, I am clearly of the view that
\nthere is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner and the decision  of the Court Martial is based on no evidence and it could be characterised  as perverse.\n<\/p>\n
59.  Accordingly,  the impugned orders are set aside. The writ petition  is allowed  and  the  petitioner shall be entitled to  all  the  consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n
60.  There shall be no orders as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court S.S. Mehta (Captain) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 1998 Equivalent citations: 1998 IVAD Delhi 385, 74 (1998) DLT 42, 1998 (46) DRJ 617 Author: K Ramamoorthy Bench: K Ramamoorthy ORDER K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated the 4th of August, 1994, wherein the […]<\/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-237358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.S. Mehta (Captain) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 1998 - 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\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.S. Mehta (Captain) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-22T12:10:10+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=\"41 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.S. Mehta (Captain) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T12:10:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998\"},\"wordCount\":8208,\"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\\\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998\",\"name\":\"S.S. Mehta (Captain) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T12:10:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.S. Mehta (Captain) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"S.S. Mehta (Captain) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 1998 - 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\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.S. Mehta (Captain) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-22T12:10:10+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":"41 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.S. Mehta (Captain) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 1998","datePublished":"1998-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T12:10:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998"},"wordCount":8208,"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\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998","name":"S.S. Mehta (Captain) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T12:10:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-mehta-captain-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.S. Mehta (Captain) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 1998"}]},{"@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\/237358","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=237358"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237358\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}