New Delhi: Captain Bhoopendra Singh alias Major Bashir Khan, who was awarded a life term by an Army court for killing three men at Amshipora in J&K’s Shopian district in 2020, has claimed that he had “obediently complied with the orders of his commanding officer”, who was part of the operation like many others from his unit.
In his appeal challenging the findings of the court that declared him guilty on six charges, including murder — filed before the Principal Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in Delhi last month — Singh also said that he was the youngest in the unit and had barely put in five years of service when the operation took place.
The appeal, a copy of which ThePrint has seen, has named the chief of Army staff and three other senior officers, including the general officer commanding-in-chief of the Northern Command as respondents.
The officer has been in custody for more than 800 days now. The court martial proceedings against him had concluded on 16 January this year, and he was given the punishment a day later.
Imtiyaz Ahmed, Abrar Ahmed, and Mohammed Ibrar were shot dead at Amshipora in Shopian district in July 2020. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Jammu and Kashmir Police filed a charge sheet months later, which claimed that he had staged the encounter.
On 15 February this year, the AFT bench of Justice Anjana Mishra and Lieutenant General C.P. Mohanty issued notices to the respondents, while admitting Singh’s appeal and fixed 9 May to hear the matter.
The bench also temporarily suspended the life imprisonment and also gave Singh interim bail for six weeks so he can attend to his mother and wife who are in hospital. The court will on 10 April consider his request for regular bail.
Terming the court martial proceedings — which were preceded by a Court of Inquiry (CoI) — as “illegal and malafide”, Singh assailed the proceedings for being “irregular” and “in utter disregard” of the rules and procedures.
He alleged that manipulations were carried out to make him the “scapegoat”.
In his appeal, he referred to a press conference that was held soon after the alleged encounter by his seniormost officer, where the Army had lauded its unit for carrying out the “successful operation”.
Singh claimed that he, along with other unit personnel, were rewarded for the same, but when the “tides turned against the operation”, the seniors doubted their own operation and singled him out to affix responsibility.
Also Read: ‘Suspicious prosecution plot’: Court order acquitting Union MoS Baghel in Sec 144 violation case
The court martial proceedings
The court martial proceedings against Singh commenced on 31 December 2021 at Old Air Field in Srinagar.
He was, however, taken into custody in August 2020 and remained in jail even during the time when CoI was on.
This, Singh’s lawyers told ThePrint, is unusual because officers who face criminal offences are not taken into custody before the court-martial proceedings begin.
According to the appeal, the court-martial inquiry was biased, carried out to “quell media pressure and sustained political pressure, which was affecting the career of senior officers”.
“Singh was made the sacrificial lamb from the beginning due to intense political pressure, media scrutiny and also to ensure the position and promotions of senior Army officers did not get affected,” the appeal said.
Pointing to the weapons seized from the encounter spot, the appeal claims that there was indeed a recovery of arms from the bodies of “slain militants”. Fired rounds of pistol, two pistols with magazine, bag of nails, live rounds of AK-47 and fired cartridges of AK-47 were all part of the recovery.
The appeal added that a forensic report of the recovered weapons has clearly brought out that the weapons were capable of firing and “had been used recently”. This important piece of evidence has been completely disregarded by the Army court, the appeal added.
Moreover, as many as 391 rounds of AK-47 were fired, apart from 125 rounds of LMG and use of other weapons such as hand-grenades, the appeal said, suggesting that this could be not have been an operation conducted by any one individual, but was a unit operation, involving various officers and other service personnel.
Singh also faulted the CoI based on how the court-martial proceedings were held.
According to him, it was not an independent probe because it was done by the senior most Army officer posted in the region, 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, hence, the latter’s influence was writ large in the matter.
‘Disappearance of crucial evidence’
The appeal has questioned the alleged disappearance of crucial evidence, such as the “situation report”, and the sequence of events that was shared in a WhatsApp group of the company and the battalion, where every detail, including planning, preparation and conduct of the operations were available.
Singh alleged that the conversations were deleted as soon as the CoI was initiated.
Singh’s appeal raises questions about the efficacy of the trial because, according to his submission to the AFT, it was not done as per the provisions of the Evidence Act.
The court-martial board went on to rely on the Army Act, instead of the Evidence Act, to examine and appreciate the material that was placed before it by the Army authorities.
However, Singh has contended that the Evidence Act, which is meant to be followed in criminal cases, shall apply in the same manner as it applies to regular criminal courts where civilians are tried.
The court-martial board accepted Singh’s co-accused’s statement to convict him. This reliance, Singh said, was illegal because the trial against the co-accused was held separately.
The co-accused — a civilian and the informant who is said to have alerted the Army about the presence of the alleged terrorists — was later declared an approver in the case. However, according to Singh, the co-accused’s statement has no evidentiary value as he never blamed the officer for any offence.
(Edited by Richa Mishra)
Also Read: ‘Those who kill cows deemed to rot in hell’ — what Allahabad HC judge said in cow-slaughter case