- (1.) The above appeal and the two Special Leave Petitions wer directed to be heard together as they relate to one and the same incident but having regard to the facts that over that incident two separate trials were held by General Court Martial ('GCM' for short), assailing their verdicts two independent writ petitions were filed and the Delhi High Court dismissed them by two separate judgments, which are under challenge herein, we have heard them one after the other and proceed to dispose of them accordingly. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1194 OF 1995
(2.) While serving as a Major in the Indian Army the appellant R. S. Budhwar, along with two other officers, was tried by a G. C. M. in December 1988 for the following charge : "Army Act, section 69 : Committing a Civil offence, that is to say abetment of an offence specified in Section 302 of India Penal Code, in consequence of which abatement such offence with (sic) committed, contrary to Section 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. In that they together, at Filed, on or before 14 June, 1987, abetted No. 3173368H Sep (L/NK)Inder Pal Singh and No. 3174523L. Sep. Mahavir Singh, both of 8 JAT to commit murders of IC 14807N Colonel SS Sahota and IC 28739H Major Jaspal Singh of the same unit, which was committed in consequence of such abatement by the said Sep. (L/NK) Inder Pal Singh and Sep. Mahavir Singh."
(3.) The GCM found the appellant and one of the other two (since dead) guilty of the above charge and awarded them punishment of imprisonment for life and cashiering. Aggrieved thereby the appellant presented a petition under Section 164 (i) of the Army Act, 1950 ('Act' for short) wherein he prayed that the findings and sentences recorded against him be not confirmed. The GOC-in-C Eastern Command, however, rejected that petition and confirmed the findings that sentences of the GCM. He then filed another petition in accordance with Section 164 (2) of the Act which was rejected by the Central Government. The appellant then approached the Delhi High Court with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was also dismissed. Hence this appeal.;