The verdict of the court martial against the Captain Bhoopendra Singh it has not yet been confirmed by the “competent higher authorities”, Northern Command in Udhampur and Army HQ in New Delhi, in accordance with military law.
Court-martial sentences in such cases, however, are “usually approved” by higher authorities.
Outdated troops afspa powers, CoI had found
An army court martial at J&K recommended life imprisonment for a captain in a staged fight at J&K. Court-martial sentences in such cases, however, are “usually approved” by higher authorities, with the Army making it clear that “false encounters” and violation of standard operating procedures during counterinsurgency operations will not be tolerated either J&K than northeast , a senior officer said Sunday.
The court martial against Captain Singh was launched in March-April last year after a Court of Inquiry (CoI) and then the subsequent Summary of Evidence (SoE) found that the soldiers “exceeded” the powers conferred by law on the Armed Forces (Special Powers) (Afspa) during the incident.
The families of the three men killed – Imtiaz Ahmed, Abrar Ahmed and Muhammad Ibrar- had claimed that the victims were laborers and not terrorists. They had gone to Shopian for work when they were killed in a “fake encounter” on July 18, 2020, they said.
After widespread protests, the army had ordered the CoI to investigate the matter. The three men’s bodies were also exhumed and later buried in their ancestral cemeteries in Rajouri after DNA testing. J&K Police had also set up a special investigation team to investigate the incident.
Court martial proceedings were subsequently initiated against Captain Singh for violating the powers vested in the AFSP and for failing to follow the Army’s “do’s and don’ts” approved by the Supreme Court.
The police charge sheet against Captain Singh said he had misinformed his superiors in the army and the police about the “hoovers” made by the three victims who were dubbed “terrorists”. Police also named two civilians in his file. By staging the meeting, the three accused “intentionally destroyed evidence of the true crime they committed and also intentionally projected false information as part of a criminal conspiracy hatched between them with the motive to grab” monetary rewards, said the charge sheet.
