HC dismisses appeal filed by Army jawan's wife JAMMU, July 16 (JNF): Justice JP Singh of State High Court Jammu wing rejected an appeal filed by wife of an Army jawan, who had killed three Army personnel and was subsequently awarded life imprisonment by the General Court Martial.
The GCM in its decree on January 28, 1998 had convicted Dhian Singh to life imprisonment besides dismissing him from service.
However, the petitioner's wife filed the appeal submitting before the high court that her husband had a history of suffering from "unspecified psychosis" and had been receiving medical treatment during his employment in the Army.
The GCM had held Dhian Singh guilty of firing from his service weapon and killing three Army personnel namely Subedar Nirmal Singh, Company Havildar Major Baldev Singh and Havildar Kaur Singh of his unit besides firing at Sepoy Harvinder Singh with an intention to kill him.
There after summary General Court Martial trial was started that awarded life imprisonment to Dhian Singh.
Subsequently, an appeal against the GCM order was filed before the Chief of Army Staff on June 27, 2000, but it was rejected.
Justice JP Singh after hearing petitioner's counsel and Assistant Solicitor General of India VK Magoo besides perusing the case observed, "It is true that Court Martial proceedings are subject to the judicial review by the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India." Justice Singh further observed that the High Court can take cognizance only when the court martial was not properly convened or there was any challenge to its composition and the proceedings conducted were in violation of the provisions of the Army Act and Army Rules.
"The plea of the counsel of the petitioner that the conviction of the petitioner is against the evidence on record and the court martial had not properly appreciated the evidence, cannot be taken into consideration.
The summary GCM has sufficiently discharged its judicial function.
Its proceedings indicate that due care and caution had been taken by the court in adhering to the provision of the Army Act and Army rules on the subject.
Its responsibility to protect the rights of the accused, charged before it by providing all the procedural safe guards, has been properly discharged by it," observed the Judge.