OA No. 65 of 2013. Case: Pramod Jay Singh Vs The Union of India. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case NumberOA No. 65 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Ramesh C.R., Adv. And For Respondents: K.M. Jamaludheen, Senior Panel Counsel
JudgesShrikant Tripathi, (Member (J)) and Vice Admiral M.P. Muralidharan, AVSM & Bar, NM, Member (A)
IssueArmed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 - Section 15; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 164(2), 69; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 354
Judgement DateJune 26, 2014
CourtArmed Forces Tribunal


Shrikant Tripathi, J. (Member (J)), (Regional Bench, Kochi)

  1. By the instant Original Application (Appeal) under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the applicant Girase Pramod Jay Singh, Ex-GNR No. 15222760Y has impugned the legality of the proceedings of the Summary Court Martial, hereinafter referred to as 'the SCM' and its final order dated 25th March 2013, whereby he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 69 of the Army Act read with Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and was also directed to suffer dismissal from the service. He has further prayed for holding a fresh enquiry to find out the truth.

  2. In this Order we do not consider it proper to disclose the identity of the victim, so she will be referred to as 'the prosecutrix'.

  3. The SCM presided over by Col. Asheesh Kashyap, Commanding Officer, 206 Army Aviation Squadron tried the applicant on the charge under Section 69 for committing a civil office, that is to say, using criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty, particularly under Section 354 of I.P.C. The particulars of the charge are that, the applicant at Bangalore, on the night of 2/3 June 2012, used criminal force to a lady Captain (prosecutrix) of the same Squadron, by grabbing her left upper arm and forcing himself upon her intending thereby to outrage her modesty. The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge. During the trial, as many as seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the aforesaid charge. PW1 is the prosecutrix, who narrated the entire story in detail and accordingly proved the same.

  4. PW2, Lt. Col. Rajesh Babu Mantena, had arrived at the place of occurrence on being informed of the incident by the prosecutrix over phone. The prosecutrix is said to have narrated the story to this witness. Even the accused also informed him as to how the incident took place. This officer inspected the place of occurrence and noted the following material aspects appearing at the place of occurrence.

    (a) There were drag marks in the drawing room which were indicating as if someone has been dragged in the drawing room.

    (b) The floor of the drawing room was littered with glass pieces.

    (c) I found some bruises on Captain Snehal Kalange's right arm, a scratch on the right forearm and a puncture wound on the right ring finger.

    In addition thereto, he found that the toe of the left foot of the victim was torn and had also noticed small amount of bleeding in the injuries. Accordingly he took photographs of the accused from his mobile phone, which are on record as Exts. 2A to 2E.

  5. PW3, Narasinha Varute, is a cousin of the prosecutrix, with whom the prosecutrix had gone for shopping and had returned on his scooter around 23.45 hours. This witness is not an eye witness of the occurrence. He has proved that he had dropped the prosecutrix near to her residence and while he was on the way to his own residence he received information from the prosecutrix regarding the incident over phone. So he returned back and the prosecutrix narrated the story. This witness proved the presence of the accused at that time.

  6. PW4, Subedar Major Surjit Singh, PW5, Naik Prabir Debnath, PW6, Subedar Major Sawai Singh and PW7, Devendra Kumar are also not eye witnesses to the occurrence. They got information regarding the incident from the prosecutrix. They further proved that the accused had also made his own statement before them regarding the incident. These witnesses are said to have acted as per the direction of PW2, Lt. Col. Rajesh Babu Mantena.

  7. The accused did not examine any witness in defence, but he made his own statement narrating the incident that had taken place, according to him. The SCM believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the applicant as aforesaid. The applicant moved a petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act before the Chief of the Army Staff against the order of the SCM. But he, without waiting for the decision of the Chief of the Army Staff, filed the instant Original Application. During the pendency of the instant Original Application, the Chief of the Army Staff considered the applicant's petition and rendered the order dated 20th December 2013 confirming the decision of the SCM. Consequently, the order rendered by the SCM stood confirmed at the level of the Chief of the Army Staff.

  8. Before entering into the merits of the case, we would like to narrate the prosecution story as also the defence story as are emerged out from the record of the SCM.

  9. Prosecution Story:-

    On 2.6.2012, at around 19.30 hours the prosecutrix had gone to the market with her cousin, PW2 Narasinha Varute, who was also working at Bangalore at that time. At around 21.45 hours she received a call from the applicant, who was performing the duty of driver of 2.5 ton vehicle and also Guard of Victoria Layout Residential Complex for guarding the Unit. The applicant is alleged to have asked the prosecutrix over phone as to what time she would be back at her residence. The prosecutrix replied that she was out for some work and would be late, so the gate should be left open and further told that nobody should wait. When the prosecutrix returned at around 23.45 hours at her residence and tried to open the main gate, which was closed, the applicant jumped out of the 2.5 ton vehicle parked in the compound, ran towards the gate and opened the same. The prosecutrix moved towards her residence, but the accused, instead of going back, followed her, so, she told him to go back to the quarters, where the guards used to sleep. But he did not reply. When the prosecutrix reached near the door of her residence and tried to open the door, the accused asked...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT