New Delhi: Capt Bhupendra Singh alias Major Bashir Khan, who was sentenced to life imprisonment by an army court for killing three people in 2020 at Amshipora in Jammu and Kashmir’s Shopian district, has claimed that He “obediently followed the orders of his commanding officer” who, like many others in his unit, was part of the operation.
in his appeal Challenging the findings of the court which declared him guilty of six charges including murder – filed Singh also said before the principal bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in Delhi last month He was the youngest in the unit and was barely five years into service when the operation took place.
The appeal, a copy of which has been accessed by ThePrint, has named the army chief and three other senior officers, including the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Northern Command, as respondents.
The officer has now been in custody for over 800 days. court martial proceedings The verdict against him was pronounced on January 16 this year and he was sentenced a day later.
Imtiaz Ahmed, Abrar Ahmed and Mohd Ibrar Were Shot dead At Amshipora in Shopian district in July 2020. a special investigation Months later, the Jammu and Kashmir Police team (SIT) filed a charge sheet, claiming that he had staging Confronted.
On 15 February this year, the AFT bench of Justices Anjana Mishra and Lt Gen CP Mohanty, while allowing Singh’s appeal, issued notice to the respondents and posted the matter for hearing on May 9.
The bench also temporarily suspended the life sentence and granted interim bail to Singh for six weeks so that he can take care of his mother and wife who are in the hospital. The court will consider his request for regular bail on April 10.
Terming the court martial proceedings – which took place before a Court of Inquiry (CoI) – as “illegal and malafide”, Singh faulted the proceedings “Irregular” and “complete disregard” of rules and procedures.
He alleged that he was manipulated to make him a ‘scapegoat’.
In his appeal, he cited a press conference held soon After the alleged encounter by its senior most officer, where the army appreciated it unit to perform a “successful operation”.
Singh claimed that he, along with other unit personnel, had been rewarded for the same, but when “the tide turned against the operation”, his superiors doubted themselves. operations and chose to entrust him with the responsibility.
court martial proceedings
The court martial proceedings against Singh began on 31 December 2021 at the Old Air Field in Srinagar.
However, he was taken into custody in August 2020 and remained in jail even during the COI.
Singh’s lawyers told ThePrint, it is unusual as officers confront the criminal Offenses are not taken into custody before court-martial proceedings begin.
According to the appeal, the court-martial inquiry was biased, “carried out to mitigate media pressure and sustained political pressure, which was affecting the careers of senior officers”.
“Singh was made a sacrificial lamb from the very beginning because of the fierce political pressure, media scrutiny and also to ensure rank and promotion Senior army officers were not affected,” the appeal said.
Pointing to the weapons seized from the encounter site, the appeal claimed that the weapons were indeed recovered from the bodies of the “slain terrorists”. Rounds of pistol, two pistols with magazines, bag of nails, live rounds of AK-47 and live cartridges of AK-47 were part of the recovery.
The appeal states that the forensic report of the recovered weapons clearly shows that weapons were capable of firing and were “recently used”. The appeal states that this crucial evidence has been completely rejected by the military court.
In addition, 391 rounds of AK-47 were fired, besides 125 rounds of LMG and other weapons like hand grenades were used, the appeal said, suggesting that it could not be a single-man operation. It is but a unit operation, consisting of various officers and other service personnel.
Singh also faulted the CoI on the basis of the court-martial proceedings.
According to him, this was not an independent investigation as it was conducted by the senior-most military officer posted in the area, who, according to Singh, “was in the chain of command under whose direct supervision the operation was conducted”.
His appeal also suggests that the officers who were selected to conduct the court-martial were serving directly under the command of the force, Headquarters, therefore, the latter’s influence was greater in this case.
Read also: ‘Rape not confirmed, woman may have been taught’: What ST-SC special court said in Hathras case
‘Missing important evidence’
The appeal calls into question the alleged disappearance of key evidence, such as “situation reports”, and the sequence of events shared in a WhatsApp group of the company and battalion, where every detail including planning, preparation and conduct of the battle was recorded. operations were available.
Singh alleged that the talks were shelved as soon as the COI started.
Singh’s appeal raises questions about the efficacy of the trial as according to his submission to the AFT, it was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act.
The court-martial board relied on the Army Act rather than the Evidence Act to examine and appreciate the material placed before it by army officers.
However, Singh has argued that the Evidence Act, which is to be followed in criminal cases, will apply in the same way as it applies to regular criminal courts where citizens are tried.
The court-martial board accepted the statement of Singh’s co-accused convicting him. Singh said, this reliance was illegal as the trial against the co-accused was going on organized separately.
Co-accused – a citizen and the informer who is said to have tipped off The Army was later informed about the presence of the alleged terrorists. approver in the matter. However, according to Singh, the statement of the co-accused It has no evidentiary value as he never convicted the officer of any offence.
(Editing by Richa Mishra)