Ex Nb Risaldar Jasbir Singh vs UOI & Others on 20 February 2026

O R D E R

20/02/2026

1. Under Section 14 and 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA (A) praying that an appropriate order, writ or direction, in the nature thereof, the Original application filed by the applicant may kindly be allowed with costs and that :- (a) The conviction of the appellant, based on the impugned findings of the General Court Martial, delivered and signed dated 10/9/2015, Annexure A1, by the Presiding Officer of GCM may kindly be declared unsustainable and without jurisdiction, consequently the same may kindly be set aside by the Hon’ble Tribunal, with direction to release the applicant/appellant from the jail forthwith.

(b) The Impugned Confirmation Order dated 07/4/2017, promulgated on 11/4/2017, by the Confirming Authority of Army, Annexure A/2, and impugned communication order dated 11/4/2017, Annexure A/3, passed by the competent authority of Army, to convey the appellant about penalty awarded by the General Court Martial, “to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and dismissal from service”, may kindly be declared illegal and without jurisdiction and same may be quashed and set aside, with further prayer for reinstatement of the applicant in service with all consequential service benefits. Accordingly, the Respondents may very kindly be directed to reinstate the appellant/applicant in army service with same status and rank, with all consequential benefits.

(c) Applicant be entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him and to order his reinstatement in army service on the same post and rank, as was held, prior to conviction, with all service benefits , to which appellant is entitled.

(d) Any other appropriate relief which this Tribunal deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the applicant.

(e) He has also prayed for allowing the OA with costs.

(f) As an interim relief, the applicant has also prayed that pending final decision of the OA/Appeal, the applicant may kindly be ordered to be released from jail, by suspending his sentence under Section 182 of the Army Act, 1950 and to suspend the sentences awarded by the General Court Martial dated 10/9/2015 and confirmed vide Order dated 17/3/2017, on the conditions, as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was the permanent combatant member of the Indian Army and was holding the rank of NaibRisaldar in No 5 Armoured Regiment and deputed on army duty in Jaisalmer area in the year 2015, when he happens to face a disciplinary action for alleged criminal acts under Section 376 (1) Read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code to constitute an offence under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, in which it was alleged that, while the applicant was travelling in Train from Jodhpur to Jaisalmer in an AC Coach, in which one lady officer of Indian Air Force was also travelling, and in the night he tried to molest her. The Army did not conduct any Court of Inquiry for the alleged criminal act, nor lodged any FIR with Railway Police and straightaway proceeded to hold Summary of Evidence after framing charges against the appellant/applicant and after hearing of charges found him guilty and on the basis of record prepared under Summary of Evidence, a General Court Martial (GCM), was held in which the appellant was issued with charge sheet for the alleged offence under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 and consequently, in violation of Section 70 of the Army Act 1950, found the applicant guilty for said offence and accordingly, convicted the applicant with penalty of dismissal from service and four years Rigorous Imprisonment as per Order passed on 10/9/2015, while the applicant was under close arrest and thereafter, the applicant was committed to civil jail on 11/4/2017 to undergo sentence awarded by the GCM, after confirmation and promulgation of said punishment, by the competent authority. The pre-confirmation petition filed against the conviction was rejected and thereafter, applicant submitted Post Confirmation Petition under section 164 (2) of Army Act 1950, which was to competent authority on 26/5/2017, but till date, it is not decided, whereas vide letter dated 07/7/2017, the applicant was informed that, his Petition was under consideration. The applicant previously filed two Original Application, one before the Hon’ble Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur, but it was withdrawn on 18/4/2017, after pre-confirmation petition stood dismissed so as to assail the order of confirmation of GCM penalty. Thereafter, the applicant filed another original application before the Hon’ble Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi, but it was also withdrawn and dismissed on 01/2/2018, with liberty to challenge the Order of Post Confirmation petition, which was still awaited. However, despite of passing of about one year, the post confirmation petition sent by the applicant, is not yet decided till date, which is presumed to be dismissed and meantime, the applicant has undergone major part of penalty of sentence of jail, for more than three years and he is left with just about less than a year to remain in jail. In this intervening period, the applicant lost his father, who died of this trauma of jail sentence awarded to the applicant and he is shouldered with the responsibility of major daughter, who is to be married. Therefore, in order to lay assail to the entire action of the Respondents and the verdict of the General Court Martial, being without jurisdiction, the applicant has been advised to approach this Hon’ble Tribunal to prefer this original application with interim relief for seeking suspension of sentence under Rule 182 of the Army Rules, 1954. Hence, this OA. The applicant had further elaborated that on 18/1/2015, the applicant alongwith his service colleague, Mohd Salim, and others, were returning from Nasirabad to his unit at Jaisalmer by Ranikhet Express Train, after service course break. He reached Jodhpur Railway Station in the evening, where he got down from the train for further journey to Jaisalmer so as to reach his destination, but the applicant and his colleagues were late to board the train. Hence, when they noticed that the train to Jaislamer had started moving from the platform, in hot haste and in order to board the train, they had entered an AC III Tier coach, B3 of the train which was going from Jodhpur to Jaisalmer. It was about 1915 hours in the evening, when the applicant had an altercation with a lady passenger who was travelling in the said train in the same coach and she had asked the applicant to get out of the coach without disclosing her identity. The applicant and his colleagues requested for some time to make arrangements to move toan othercoach, till the TTE comes. When the applicant noticed that seats/berths were vacant in the coach, he got adjusted in same coach, after taking permission of the concerned TTE, travelling in the train. At about 2130 hrs, the said lady passenger made a hue and cry in the coach and started beating the applicant, and she shouted that, the applicant had fingered her while she was in sleep and she used words, “Isne mujhe chhera hai”. The applicant denied the allegation and tried to convince the lady and requested her to cool down, because when the lady shouted, the applicant was in sleep and the applicant sought pardon, by saying that, he was in sleep and his hands might have touched her unintentionally and he did not know about any such incident and his colleagues also reached the coach and requested the lady passenger to cool down and grant pardon to him, by pleading that, the applicant was a soldier of the Army and it would tarnish the image of the army, if the matter is brought to public notice or media. In the meantime, the lady officer phoned up her colleague in Air Force and then she introduced herself to be an officer of the Indian Air Force. Thereafter, concerned TTE of the coach reached, who also called GRP and GRP personnel asked the lady officer to lodge an FIR, if any such incident had happened. However, the lady officer did not agree and she did not lodge any FIR with the railway police. Thereafter at about 0030 hours, when the applicant reached his destination, army and police were already there at the platform to arrest the applicant and, accordingly, he was taken to his unit by one officer and one JCO of the Unit. The most significant feature of this incident is that, incident of alleged crime took place in train within the jurisdiction of railway police, but even then no FIR was lodged with the Railway Police and the alleged offence was related to civil area jurisdiction, as such, without lodging an FIR, the matter for investigation could not have been taken by the Army to hold inquiry/trial of the alleged offence in question. The lady officer declined to lodge an FIR, when the Railway Police asked her at the Railway Station, Jaisalmer by saying that, she would take up the case with the Army Unit and she left with her Air Force colleagues to her Unit. The next day on, 19/1/2015, the applicant was called by his Unit Commandant and asked about the incident and an explanation from the applicant, wherein the applicant had narrated the incident and pleaded innocence in the whole matter. But his explanations were not believed and he was put under Guards Custody for seven days in the JCO Mess. Thereafter, at the instance of the lady officer, false charges of outraging her modesty were framed against the applicant. The applicant was called for hearing of charges by issuing him Charge sheet on 03/2/2015, which contained charges of Section 354 IPC, which were read over to the applicant in

terms of Rule 22 of the Army Rules 1954, by his Commanding Officer. The applicant denied the charges and stated that, false charges were being levelled against him, as such he does not admit the allegations. However, neither any witness was called in his presence by the Commanding Officer, nor the applicant was affordedan opportunity to cross examine the witness, nor his signatures were obtained on the hearing of charge proceedings. Thus the entire action was in violation of Rule 22 of the Army Rules 1954. Thereafter, by holding the applicant guilty of charges under Section 354 of the IPC, read with Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, the competent authority ordered for preparing recording of Summary of Evidence, wherein proceedings were held from 04/2/2015 to 14/2/2018, in which the prosecutrix was examined as Prosecution Witness (PW) No 1, in which she deposed and alleged that, “at approximately 2115 hours, I woke up suddenly to find, the man who had boarded the train later on, was sitting down in the space in between two berths and his body weight was on me. He had pushed away my blanket and bed sheet, unbuttoned and unzipped my jeans and put his hand inside the innerwear”. This statement cannot be believed for the reason that, in Coach B 3, which was three tier coach, there might have been many passengers, if the seats were occupied by all passengers and if seats/berth were lying vacant, then the applicant could not have slept in the space between the berth as alleged and if the applicant was sitting in the space between two berths, then question does not arise that his body weight would be on the body of lady passenger and if the lady was in sleep, how could she feel that, blanket and bed sheets were pushed away by applicant and her jean pants were unbuttoned and unzipped? If that was the allegation, the jean pants which was worn by the lady officer, should have been taken as piece of evidence to prove that, on that night she was bearing Jeans, which had buttons and zip. But the jean pants were never produced during summary of evidence or even during the court martial proceedings, which proves that it was a false and concocted story. Further, in the proceedings of Record of Summary of Evidence, total seven witnesses were examined, who all have put their signatures after their statements and it is signed by Recording Officer, but none of the statement contains signature of the applicant and after examination-in-chief it is recorded that, applicant declined to cross examine. Very surprisingly, none of the statement, recorded during Summary of Evidence, bears signature of the applicant and even his statement was not recorded and there is no note below every statement of witness that, applicant declined to sign the statement. The statement of PW-2 who is said to be duty officer contradicts statement of Lady Officer (PW-1) and there is grave contradiction between statement of PW-2 and PW-6, Sub Inspector RohitashvaRajolia, of GRPF Jaisalmer, who has deposed in his statement that, “Lady passenger declined to lodge FIR, by saying that it would tarnish image of Armed Forces and for the purpose CaptVijender S Yadav, would deal with individual”. PW – 7who is the TTE of the Coach in question, deposes many new facts which are not there in the version of other witness. So, the entire proceedings recorded under Summary of Evidence was in violation of Rule 23 of the Army Rules, 1954, and the same were recorded in absence of applicant and he was never called to participate the said proceedings, nor he ever declined to give statement or to sign any such proceedings. Thus, there was a big conspiracy, hatched up against the applicant at the instance of said lady officer, with whom the applicant had altercation over berth in the coach, copy of compilation of statement of seven prosecution witnesses recorded during Summary of Evidence are annexed at Annexure A/4. Thereafter, the applicant was attached to another army unit, ie, 6004 (Independent) Armoured Workshop of Jaisalmer and the applicant was placed under Open Arrest wef 12/6/2015 with instructions to confine to the army area, and thereafter, without complying with the mandatory provisions of Rule 24, 28 and 33 of the Army Rules, the applicant was issued with Charge Sheet containing allegation of charges under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, amounting to offence under Section 376 (1) read with Section 511 of the IPC, containing charges, “committing a civil offence that is to say attempt to commit rape and in such attempt, doing an act towards the commission of the act, contrary to Section 376 (1) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas nothing was deposed under the Summary of Evidence, any different than the version given by the lady officer about the incident, so as to constitute if offence of attempt to commit rape. In fact, the Summary of Evidence was recorded with allegation of offence under Section 354 IPC, and she gave same version, which was given in the complaint made to the TTE or to army officers at the Railway station, but even then with pre-determined intention, the charges were altered and were framed with serious charges under Section 376 (1) read with Section 511 IPC, with sole intention to punish the applicant with severe penalty. Moreover, with the allegations of said charges, the trial of the applicant by General Court Martial was without jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 70 of the Army Act, 1950. But even after issuance of said charge sheet dated 08/7/2015, the applicant was put to trial by General Court Martial without providing the copy of convening order and in violation of Rule 34 of the Army Rules 1954, the GCM proceedings were held, without bringing to notice of the applicant the charges and without providing him adequate defending opportunity, Annexure A/5. During the GCM proceedings held for the period 22/7/2015 till 10/9/2015, seven prosecution witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW- 7, who were allowed to be cross examined by the applicant, through his defence counsel, the applicant was examined within Rule 58 of the Army Rules 1954, wherein he denied the allegations and he also gave statement and narrated the whole incident that how altercation took place, when he boarded the train in the coach in which the lady officer was travelling. After submission of closing address of both the Prosecutor and the Defence, the Judge Advocate General submitted her submissions and the Court was closed for recording of findings of the Court Martial. Findings of the GCM was pronounced on 10/9/2015 and accordingly, sentence was pronounced wherein the applicant was awarded with too harsh and severe penalty with, (a) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and (b) to be dismissed from service punishment, Annexure A/1, which are being assailed in the OA. Aggrieved by the court verdict, Pre-confirmation Petition dated 21/9/2015 submitted by the applicant to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Command, which was kept pending for almost two years and finally, without dealing with the contentions raised in the petition, the learned Confirming Authority, rejected the said petition vide Impugned Order dated 17/3/2017 and consequently, confirmed the findings and sentences of the GCM and, thereafter, the same were communicated to the applicant vide the Impugned communication dated 11/4/2017 and then the applicant was committed to Central Jail, Jodhpur to undergo the said sentence of civil jail for four years and since then he is in Jail till date undergoing the sentence so awarded by the GCM. The applicant filed MA No 102/2017 before this Hon’ble Tribunal, seeking suspension of sentences, however, when it was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Tribunal that the sentences so awarded by the GCM has been confirmed by the confirming authority and pre-confirmation petition has been rejected, the applicant was advised to withdraw the said MA and to prefer appeal against the conviction and sentences and to seek suspension of sentence. Consequently, the MA was dismissed vide Order dated 18/4/2017 with said liberty. Thereafter, the applicant sent a post confirmation against the conviction and sentences as also against the confirmation Order dated 17/3/2017 to the Central Government. Since it was pending for a long time and in the absence of regular Benches of the Tribunal both at Jaipur and Jodhpur, the applicant approached the Hon’ble Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi, in OA Appeal No 1918/2017, in which the applicant also filed copy of letter dated 07/7/2017, received from the competent authority stating that his post confirmation petition was under consideration at the appropriate level, Annexure A/9. Miscellaneous Application filed by the applicant for interim relief of suspension of sentences was rejected by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide Order dated 05/1/2018. Therefore, in order to wait for the decision of the Post Confirmation Petition as also to assail the same thereafter before this Hon’ble Tribunal, the applicant withdrew the OA Appeal No 1918/2017, which was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated 01/2/2018, Annexure A/10. It is pertinent to mention that due to said trauma and tragedy suffered by the applicant, his father could not bear with the pain and suffering of the applicant and untimely breathed his last on 22/9/2017 for which the applicant was granted parole for a few days to meet his family members. The applicant further respectfully submits that he is shouldered with responsibility of a marriageable major daughter, but because of this tragic incident, his whole life is shattered and even family is ruined. The incident was totally false and concocted. There was some altercation with the lady officer in train and she encashed her womanhood to fix the applicant in false case and since she was a lady, her version was believed. Secondly, it was not within the jurisdiction of the Army Court Martial forum to try the applicant for civil offence and there was neither any court of inquiry, nor any FIR lodged with civil police. No investigation reporthas filed by army authority, prior to holding the court martial. But ignoring all the settled legal provisions, the applicant has been convicted in a mechanical manner, for the offence which cannot fall under Section 376 (1)/511 of the IPC. But even then the

applicant has been punished with too severe a penalty, which deserves to be declared unsustainable in law. Further, taking into account the time when the applicant was put under open arrest, at the time of commencement of General Court Martial proceedings on 22/7/2015 and further close arrest on 10/9/2015 under military custody, till confirmation of sentences and thereafter he was committed to civil jail to undergo sentences of imprisonment on 11/4/2017 and as such, taking into account his total arrest period, the applicant has already undergone about three years of sentences out of award of four years of sentence and by taking into account of remission, the applicant is left with about six to seven months of sentence of imprisonment and still the post confirmation petition sent on 26/5/2017 is not yet decided by the Central Government, which is deemed to have been rejected, because one year is about to pass, after its receipt by the competent authority. The applicant in his defence has further reiterated that a Court of Inquiry is mandatory as provided under Rule 177 to 181 and Rule 180 specially provides that, whenever a character of a person of Military or if reputation of Military is in question, the person, whose character is at stake, be afforded full opportunity to defend himself. Thus, it was necessary in this case, to afford opportunity to defend against the allegations made by the lady officer. But noefforts were made and it has been admitted by the PW-1 adjutant of the unit that, no investigation report was prepared or produced by PW-7, Major Vijendra Singh Yadav. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA Appeal, praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement. The Respondents, at first, have stated that the time involved in disposing off the Post Confirmation Petition is procedural in nature. The liability of marriage of major daughter andloss of father during the course of his jail term does not warrant grant of relief sought by the applicant as the crime committed by him is heinous in nature. Further, the issue of altercation or exchange of heated words has already been adequately analysed by the court during conduct of General Court Martial proceedings. All circumstances and evidence placed on record has been considered by the court which has not found merit in the applicant’s arguments in this case. The court has placed reliance on the documentary evidence by Dy CTI, PW-6, who brought out that as per Reservation

Chart, the applicant’s reservation was in Coach AB-1 and not B3. PW 6 has also deposed that after the train started from Jodhpur Station, approximately after 20 minutes, he saw the applicant walking from one coach to another coach without any purpose and sensing that anything could happen or go wrong, he had asked him to go and sit on his seat and he saw the applicant next only when a passenger reported to him about a mishap that had happened with a lady. On the basis of above evidence, the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was not supposed to be present in B3 Coach. The complainant submitted a written complaint to Army and Air Force authorities three days after the incident and there is no requirement of lodging of any FIR and the applicant was given adequate opportunity during the court martial proceedings to defend his case. The Court has accorded the most anxious consideration to the evidence Prosecutrix’s testimony has brought out that the accused had come running from outside at one of the stations after Jodhpur and sat on the seat next to her cabin on Seat No 7. She and the accused had a conversation and thereafter, she went off to sleep at around 1930 hours and had woken up at around 2115 hours only when she felt something different and when she gained her consciousness it was only then she noticed that her blanket and her bedsheet were pushed away and that the button and zip of her jeans were unbuttoned and unzipped. She has further brought out that she saw that the accused was sitting in between two berths, ie, Seat No 1 and Seat No 4. He was sitting down and one of his hand was inside her panty and a portion of his hand was on her body and that it was her logical conclusion and not a presumption that removing of the blanket and bed sheet and unbuttoning/unzipping of her jeans was done by the accused because there was no one else in the cabin. She has also reiterated and claimed the fact that if there was no one else in the cabin and the accused applicant’s hand was inside her innerwear, the accused could not have done the same without opening her button or unzipping her jeans. She has also reiterated that accused applicant’s entire palm was inside her panty, he was cupping the flesh in the genital area, his finger was just above the vagina, his entire palm was touching her genital area and further, by hand insider the innerwear she meant that obviously the accused applicant was not feeling the cotton of the innerwear, he was trying to penetrate but it did not materialize, because she woke up and not because he wanted to stop and that the same is not her presumption because the applicant was fiddling with her genitals. She pushed the accused applicant away, dressed up and started hitting the accused and while hitting the accused applicant she was calling for help crying, “Koi hain”? In the meantime, the accused applicant tried to flee, but the complainant pushed him again and beat him up while continuing with call for help. His friends came and asked the lady to pardon him for which, the lady officer asked him to remain away and threatened him that she would have him arrested, making the friend of the accused applicant to leave the area. With regard to the contention of the applicant that the charges against him were altered from under Section 354 IPC to Section 376 (1) read with Section 511 of IPC with an intention to punish him severely, the Respondents have submitted that the said point has been dealt with by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Command in his Order dated 17/3/2017 on the petition submitted by the applicant. He has observed that Army Rule 22 (4) empowers a Commanding Officer to frame a suitable charge if the summary of evidence discloses an offence other than the one investigated, Annexure R/3. It is also wrong to say that the GCM was without jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 70 of the Army Act, 1950. Further, it is wrong to say that the applicant was put to trial by GCM without providing him with copy of Convening Order and in violation of Army Rules, 1954, whereas, he was provided with a copy of the Charge Sheet for his trial, Annexure R/2. The GCM against the applicant was conducted as per due process of law. Numerous evidences, facts on record and circumstantial evidence have been examined by the court and adequate opportunity was given to the applicant to defend his case during trial by General Court Martial and his liability of marriageable daughter does not warrant grant of relief sought by him as the crime committed by him is heinous in nature. With regard to longer punishment, ie, not taking into account the pre-trial close arrest and open arrest served by the applicant, the Respondents have submitted that the period spent by the applicant under arrest/confinementduring pre-trial and post-trial stages has been set off from the term of rigorous imprisonment and he has got the benefit of the same.

4. We have heard the counsels for the parties extensively over a period of time and perused the material on record.

5. It is incontrovertibly evident from the material on record and the deposition of MrPradeep Gaur, deputy Chief Ticket Inspector (Dy CTI), PW 7, (whose deposition was a crucial evidence in this case)that the applicant herein was travelling on the intervening night of 18 and 19/1/2015, from Jodhpur to Jaisalmer by Train No 15014 Ramnagar Jaisalmer Ranikhet Express, where his unit was stationed at that time, with his reserved berth in AB-1 Coach. However, rather than occupying his reserved berth and spend the night there, the applicant had scouted the entire AC Compartments and finding the Prosecution Witness No 1, who turned out to be a serving Air Force Officer (PW 1), alone in her Reserved Coach, B3, tried to outrage her modesty by inserting his hands into her private parts, while the lady was asleep. As was expected from a respectable serving defence officer, the PW1 raised an alarm and the matter was reported to the railway authorities. Besides,the lady herself talked tothe unit officer of the accused applicant through the mobile of the accused applicant. Upon reaching the destination, ie, Jaisalmer, the accused applicant was handed over to the waiting Army unit officers. It is also on record that upon questioned by the PW7 and the railway policeman, the applicant had confessed the incident and stated that he could not control his emotion and he thought the lady officer to be of loose moral character. Accordingly, the applicant was arraigned after following due process by the army authorities and based on the conclusion of General Court Martial, the applicant was charged under Army Act Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, for committing a civil offence, that is to say, attempt to commit rape and in such attempt, doing an act towards the commission of the same, contrary to Section 376 (1) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, in that the accused applicant was blamed for committing rape on “Miss KA”, on 18/1/2015 and in such attempt did a certain act towards the commission of the said offence,unbuttoned and unzipped her jeans and put his hand inside her panties, while travelling in the said Train. The applicant was sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment in civil jail and was dismissed from service, on 10/9/2015. The Petition dated 21/9/2015 against the sentence awarded to the applicant was examined threadbare in its entirety and vide Order dated 17/3/2017, the same was rejected by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Command, being devoid of merit, while the period spent by the applicant under

arrest/confinement during pre-trial, trial and post trial stages set off from the term of rigorous imprisonment awarded to him.

6. Moreover, it has been seen that at the stage of Summary of Evidence, the applicant refused to cross examine any of the prosecution witnesses nor did he sign the statements given by various PWs. Also, he did not make any statement in his defence and declined to call any witness in regard to his defence as also his character in general and also refused to sign on this statement of his. Accordingly, based on the Summary of Evidence, the Competent Authority ordered his trial by a General Court Martial. The very fact that the applicant refused to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and did not make any statement in his defence makes it amply clear that the grounds brought out in the OA are an afterthought and far removed from the facts of the case. The applicant is also stated to have made a statement at GCM which reads, “Meradimagkharab ho gayatha, issliyemainehimmat Karlie”,as mentioned in the GCM Order dated 10/9/2015,which shows his commission of the offence. His intent to commit the offence is also clear from the fact that even though his reservation was in other Coach, he decided to sit in B-3, where the victim had a confirmed berth and sat in the seat just opposite to her once the train departed from Jodhpur in the evening hours. It is also a fact that even though most of the seats in B- 3 Coach were vacant, he sat opposite to the victim with an intention to molest her during night time, as he was not aware that she was an officer of Indian Air Force. Hence, the mens rea on the part of the applicant was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the GCM.

7. Contrary to the plea of the applicant, by no stretch of imagination, it could be fathomed that an educated serving lady Air Force Officer, whose career and life has just begun, could have gone to the extent of making false allegation without any substance of outraging her modesty while in her sleep forthe heck of it or in a spur of moment. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the lady officer had levelled false accusation against the applicant, an unknown entity to her, with some ulterior motive that too, in such a sensitive issue, keeping her own reputation and status at peril. Moreover, in her wisdom and keeping in mind the adverse publicity that could have entailed such a happening, the lady officer preferred not to lodge an FIR with the civil police, but trusted the army authorities about the action to be taken against the accused applicant for his unbecoming conduct during his train travel. Moreover, the applicant was not an ordinary citizen of the country but a well trained Junior Commissioned Officer of the Indian Army with considerable years of service to his credit, whom the general public always look upon with awe and admiration as a role model. Moreover, it has also been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant, despite being a trained and experienced soldier of the rank of NaibRisaldar (NaibSubedar),had tried to violate the bodily integrity of a young lady service officer while she was on her train journey, which cannot be countenanced and, hence, the applicant deserves no mercy for the despicable actcommitated by him.Also, it would be prudent to observe that that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, held the view that groping a female and trying to untie her pyjama string constituted “attempt to rape”and set aside the Allahabad High Court Judgment dated 17/3/2025, which had termed the offence not an “attempt” but “preparation to commit rape”. Under the circumstances, we do not find any illegality and/or infirmity in the action taken by the Respondents in either the conduct of the General Court Martial Proceedings or the sentence awarded to the applicant for the reprehensible act committed by the applicant with a serving lady officer of the Indian Air Force, warranting our interference. The prayer of the applicant, therefore, forsetting aside the findings of General Court Martial dated 10/9/2015 and subsequent confirmation order dated 07/4/2017, have no merit and is rejected.

8. The OA Appeal is dismissed accordingly. No order on costs.

9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-