Judgment:
Lt. Gen. Thomas Mathew, Member (A):
1. The applicant is the widow of Sergeant Sushil.V.S. of Indian Air Force who died while in service. She is aggrieved by the action of respondents declaring the death of Sgt.Sushil.V.S. a case of suicide. The applicant has prayed for an effective investigation into the case and declare the death of her late husband as attributable to service and grant her all the consequential benefits.
2. The late Sgt.Sushil.V.S. was serving at the Air Force Academy, Hyderabad where he died of gun shot wound on 30.12.2007. He was on guard duty patrolling the area of Twin Hangar on that night. He was in possession of a Sten Machine Carbine along with twenty cartridges. After his duty, he had dinner and came back to the guard rest room at about 19.45 hours. His colleague LAC R.K.Chowdhary had gone to have his dinner. On hearing a loud sound, guards from the nearby post came to the rest room and found Sgt.Sushil V.S. Squatting by the edge of a charpoy motionless with blood oozing from his forehead. The Sten Machine Carbine was held in his right hand. The Duty Medical Officer who reached the rest room at about 21.10 hours examined and declared Sgt.Sushil.V.S. dead.
3. The Civil Police was called by the Air Force authorities who carried out their investigation and the FIR was filed on 31.12.2007 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. A court of Inquiry was conducted by the Air Force on the same day and two additional Courts of Inquiry were also conducted subsequently. The competent authority declared the death as a case of suicide and not attributable to service. The post mortem of the deceased was carried out at District Hospital, Medchal on 31.12.2007. The civil police submitted its final report and closed the case as suicidal death and no foul play was suspected in the unnatural death.
4. The applicant was granted Ordinary Family Pension by the respondents. However, the applicant's appeal for the grant of Special Family Pension was rejected by authorities. A second appeal by the applicant was also rejected by the respondents. The applicant thereafter filed this application before the Tribunal with a prayer to direct the Air Force authorities to initiate a detailed investigation into the case with the help of civil authorities and direct the respondent to pay Ex-Gratia payment and Special Family Pension declaring the death of the deceased as attributable to service.
5. The applicant has contended that no proper investigations were carried by the respondents and the civil police. It is apprehended that no forensic or ballistic investigations were conducted. The investigation itself took a long time and she was provided with relevant documents only after the O.A. was filed before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the respondents had decided that it was a case of suicide even before the Court of Inquiry was ordered which is evident from the convening order and the FIR. Two additional Courts of Inquiry were also conducted merely to cover up mistakes made in the first inquiry. It is submitted that the applicant had spoken with her husband about an hour before he had died. There was no reason for him to commit suicide. Even the Courts of Inquiry have not found any reason for the deceased to commit suicide. The respondents have not made any effort to rule out the possibility of enemy attack or murder or accident. It has also been contended that the body was moved from the place of incident before the police reached there and the inquest was conducted the next day at the mortuary. It is averred that the statement made in the inquiry by witnesses appears to be prompted by some one else. The applicant apprehends that the inquiry was done to save the actual culprits or to cover up security lapses at the Air Force Academy. More than the enhanced pensionary and other monetary benefits it is to get to the cause of death of her husband that she filed various appeals and applications. Since the respondent did not give a satisfactory reply she has approached the Tribunal. She has prayed for a detailed investigation to the cause of death of her husband while on duty and declare his death attributable to service and grant her corresponding benefits.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Charanjit Kaur vs. Union of India in WP(C)No.45 of 1989, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1491, and the Hon'ble Armed Forces Tribunal Bench, Chennai, in T.A.No.125 of 2010 (W.PNo.1228 of 2000-High Court of Andhra Pradesh) to support his submissions.
7. The respondents have contended that a proper and deliberate investigation was carried out by the Air Force authorities and the civil police. The competent authority had ordered a Court of Inquiry immediately after the incident on 31.12.2007. Thereafter two additional Courts of Inquiry were conducted to further clarify some of the issues. The findings and recommendations of the Courts of Inquiry was approved by HQ Training Command on 23.12.2008. It was averred that the respondents had gone into all the aspects of the incident before concluding that it was a case of suicide and not attributable to service. The civil police was called by the duty officer of the Academy and Circle Inspector Venkat Reddy of Police Station Dindigal arrived at the site by 21.45 hours. Photographs of the individual and the area around were taken and a thorough search was carried out. The weapon and bullets found were taken in custody by the police. The civil policed have carried out their own investigation including forensic and ballastic investigation as well as post mortem before arriving at their conclusion. The post mortem attributed the death of the individual to Gun shot wound and found no other injury on his person.
8. It is averred by the respondent that the husband of the applicant on completion of his duty at 18.30 hours had gone to his quarters to get his bedding and to have dinner. His next duty was to commence at 21.30 hours. On his return to the rest area at about 19.45 hours, his colleague LAC R.K. Chaudary went to have his dinner. It was at this time that the incident happened. There were other guards in nearby posts and any intruder would have been seen by them. If there was an attempt by another person to murder him, there would have been an altercation and the deceased would have raised the alarm before the shot was fired which would have been heard by other guards in the vicinity. Two of the guards had rushed to the rest area on hearing the sound of the shot but did not find anyone else there. The Academy being a sensitive area was well guarded by sentries and patrols. It is contented by the respondents that from the position of the body, holding of the weapon, the entry and exit point of the bullet and the place where it hit the roof, it is evident, the shot could have been fired only by the individual himself. Further, he had loaded the magazine of the weapon with five bullets against the laid down orders on the subject. The safety catch of the weapon was found in 'R' ie., firing position instead of safe position. This again could have been done by the individual only. All these point to the fact that the individual was alone in the rest area at the time of incident and he had also loaded the weapon himself.
9. It is submitted by the respondent that the court of Inquiry had deliberated in detail the possibilities of accidental firing, murder and suicide. The court had considered the position of the body, location of the weapon, entry and exit points of bullet and location of the nearby sentries as well as the security arrangements in that area. It was also found that his consumption of liquor in the recent past had increased. He was counselled by his Section Commander for excessive consumption of liquor two days before the incident. He was provided with a family quarters but he never brought his family to the station and he was living alone for a year and a half . He had taken loans and appeared to have financial burdens upon him. He had expressed concern about the health of his parents and told his colleagues that he would be seeking discharge soon. The court however found no conclusive proof that the individual had committed suicide. Having ruled out the possibility of murder or accidental firing, the court came to the conclusion that it was a case of suicide not attributable to service. The findings and opinion of the Courts of Inquiry was scrutinized at various levels and then finally approved by HQ Training Command. The applicant's first and second appeal for grant of Special Family Pension considering the death as attributable to service were rejected by the competent authorities.
10. The respondents have contented that the Air Force authorities had carried out a detailed inquiry and thorough investigation on the death of Sgt.Sushil. V.S. Local police were called immediately and had arrived within the next one hour. The police had also carried out their investigations including the post mortem of the body. It is submitted that it was after due deliberation of all the available information that the respondent came to the decision that it was a case of suicide.
11. We have heard both sides and perused the document including the original copy of the Courts of Inquiry and copy of police report that was produced before the Tribunal . It is evident that applicant's husband died of Gun Shot Wound on 30.12.2007 while serving at the Air Force Academy, Hyderabad. The deceased was in the midst of his duty as sentry and was at the rest room after having his dinner. His fellow sentry had gone to have his dinner. There were other sentries in the nearby sentry posts. The deceased had a weapon with 20 bullets. After the incident it was found that the weapon was loaded with four bullets and one fired case was found lying nearby. At about 20.30 hours hearing a loud noise the nearby sentries rushed to the rest area where the deceased was found sitting in a pool of blood next to a charpoy holding the weapon. The bullet was found to have entered to the right of his Adams apple and exited from the right rear of the skull. There was no sign of anyone in the immediate vicinity or any intruders in the nearby area. The duty medical officer on arrival, declared the individual dead. The local police also arrived at the scene and carried out their investigations there and inquest and post mortem, the next day. A Court of Inquiry was ordered on 31.12.2007. On its conclusion two additional Court of Inquiry were ordered on 18.07.2008 and 22.10.2008 to rectify observations made on the first Court of Inquiry by the HQ Training Command. The proceedings of the inquiry was approved by the HQ Training Command on 28.12.2008 observing the death of Sgt.Sushil.V.S. as a case of suicide and not attributable to service. The civil police had also concluded that it was a case of suicide. The appeal of the applicant against this decision and to grant her Special Family Pension as a case attributable to military service was rejected by the respondents.
12. The applicant's contention is that the Air Force authorities and the civil police had not carried out proper investigation into the death of her husband. The respondents have concluded that it was a case of 'suicide not attributable to service' without having any evidence to that effect. The applicant has also quoted orders of the Apex Court and the Armed Forces Tribunal Bench, Chennai in similar case which were decided in favour of the petitioners. The respondents have contended that they along with the civil police have carried out detailed investigation into the case and after collecting all available evidence and based on the facts and circumstances a conclusion was arrived at.
13. The Court of Inquiry proceedings were finalized after almost a year. However, it is seen that two additional Courts of Inquiry to the original one were ordered to rectify some of the observations. These have been conducted by the same board of officers and as per existing instructions. The civil police were called immediately on occurrence of the incident and reached the site by 21.45 hours. They have took into custody the weapon and the bullets as well as personal items of the deceased. The inquest and post mortem were conducted the next day. A perusal of the Courts of Inquiry and the police report bring out the following:-
(a) The deceased Air Warrior was on sentry duty on 30.12.2007. He finished one round of duty at 18.30 hours and the next was to commence at 21.30 hours. He was alone at the rest area for Sentries when the incident happened.
(b) There were other Sentries in the near vicinity performing guard duties. The air base being a high security area was well guarded and patrolled.
(c) On hearing a loud noise, the nearest Sentry ran towards the rest area and found the deceased sitting in a pool of blood next to the charpoy holding a weapon in his right hand.
(d) The bullet entered through the right side of his neck and exited from the back of the head. There were burn marks around the entry point indicating that the barrel of the weapon was held close to the neck.
(e) A search of the area by other Sentries on the orders of Superiors did not reveal presence of any intruders.
(f) The weapon was found loaded with five bullets and the safety catch in âRâposition ie., firing position. One bullet had been fired and the fired case and lead was found nearby. The fired bullet after exiting the head of the deceased had hit the roof of the rest area directly above the charpoy. The weapon and the bullets were taken into custody by the police for their investigation.
(g) The coloured photographs taken at the site before the body was removed show the position of the body, the weapon and the location of the bullet entry. From these and the fact that the bullet had hit the roof of the room; it would be reasonable to assume that the weapon was fired from below and very close to the neck of the deceased.
(h) The weapon had been loaded contrary to existing orders and the safety catch was found in 'R' ie. firing position. These two actions could have been done only by the deceased himself. There was no reason for him to do that at the rest area.
(i) There was no evidence of any other person being present at the scene or that of a struggle or alarm being raised by the deceased.
(j) No particular reason has been deduced that would have compelled him to commit suicide. There was no note found or utterance reported by colleagues that would indicate suicidal tendency.
(k) The deceased had cordial relations with his colleagues but had remained aloof. He was staying alone at the family quarters allotted to him for almost a year and half. His wife and child never joined him there. He was an efficient worker and had no problems with his colleagues or Superiors. In the few months before his death, he was found consuming excess amount of alcohol. He was counselled for the same by his Superiors few days before the incident. He had taken loans from the banks as well as from the Air Force. He had expressed his desire to leave the service so that he could look after his aged sick parents.
(l) The Courts of Inquiry have considered the possibility of murder, and accidental fire but found no evidence to support that theory.
(m) Having ruled out all other possibilities, the Court of Inquiry came to the conclusion that it was a case of suicide. The civil police have also given a similar verdict after their investigation.
14. The unnatural death of late Sgt.Sushil.V.S. Could have happened due to enemy action, murder, accidental firing or suicide. The Air Force Academy being a well guarded area, the possibility of an enemy or anti national elements breaking the security cordon to kill one Air Warrior can be ruled out. A search of the area did not reveal the presence of any intruder. As far as personal enmity is concerned, the deceased seems to have good rapport with his colleagues and superiors and there is nothing to indicate any reason for killing him. The post mortem has revealed only the injury by Gun Shot Wound and no other injury or marks were noticed on his body. It is clear that the shot was fired from very close quarter. Anybody coming that close would have been resisted by the deceased resulting in a scuffle and injury to other parts of the body and the resultant noise would have attracted the attention of other Sentries in the near vicinity. The Sentries have not reported seeing any intruders or hearing any noise from the rest area except the gun shot. For accidental firing, the weapon has to be loaded, the safety catch placed at 'R' i.e. Firing position, cocked and the trigger pulled. The Sentries were not supposed to load their weapons as per local orders. The deceased had finished his first round of duty and was in the rest area. Only the deceased himself could have loaded the weapon and got it ready to fire. At the incident site the deceased was found holding the weapon in his hand. The entry point of the bullet had burn marks due to the close proximity of the barrel end with the neck. All these aspects rules out all other possibilities that would have caused the death of late Sgt.Sushil V.S. other than suicide. There were no eye witness to the incident or any concrete reason indicating suicide. However, circumstances and facts as available point only towards the possibility of suicide.
15. We have perused the Courts of Inquiry and police report and are of the opinion that the Air Force and Police authorities have carried out a detailed investigation into the incident. We have not come across any reason to doubt the actions of the respondents in this case and to interfere with the final decision of the Air Force Authorities.
16. The learned counsel for the applicant had sited similar cases decided upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Tribunal Bench at Chennai. In the first case of Smt.Charanjit Kaur vs. Union of India in WP(C)No.45 of 1989, the husband of the petitioner died in mysterious circumstances. The officer suffering from Ischemic Heart Disease was evacuated from Kargil to Leh where he was being treated. His wife and children were not permitted to meet him initially. Seeing his condition, they insisted on his further evacuation to Ambala or Srinagar for better treatment. He was found very sick and unable to walk even. Reluctantly the authorities agreed to air lift him but refused permission for wife and children to accompany him. At the time when he was to board the flight, the authorities claimed that he had gone to a cook house and suffered 98% burns and subsequently died of shock. No proper inquiries were made and if made, it was not revealed to the petitioner. The police regretted their inability to carry out a detailed investigation at a late stage. The Hon'ble Court observed that the authorities had handled the case with culpable negligence and cynical indifference. It was held that the officer died in mysterious circumstances and that the responsibility of his death is prima facie traceable to the criminal commissions and ommissions on the part of the concerned authorities. We do not find any similarity between the present application before the Tribunal and the matter which was brought before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
17. In the second case decided upon by the Hon'ble Tribunal Bench at Chennai, the authorities had earlier declared the death of the petitioner's son as due to accidental firing. However in the subsequent application before the Tribunal at Chennai it was submitted as a case of suicide or accident due to misfiring of the weapon. The orders passed in that case was based on the facts and circumstances of that particular incident which differ in this case.
18. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that there has been no oversight or illegality by Air Force authorities in the conduct of the investigation into death of late Sgt.Sushil.V.S. The respondents have come to a conclusion based on the facts and circumstances of the case which does not require any interference by this Tribunal.
19. In the result, the Original Application is dismissed.
20. There will be no order as to costs.
21. Issue free copy of the order to both side.