Chandigarh, July 11
A fresh controversy has erupted in the case pertaining to the alleged sexual assault of a lady Army officer by her senior officers, with the recording of the summary of evidence (SoE) being closed abruptly without all defence witnesses being examined.
Further, the two accused officers in the case, a colonel and a major, are learnt to have been issued letters asking them to give their respective choices for nominating defending officers for their trial by general court martial.
According to sources, the letters were issued by the Commander, 96 Infantry Brigade, Brig Sarabjit Singh, on July 8, the same day the SOE was closed. The SoE is a prelude to trial by court martial and a decision to hold a trial is taken at higher levels after the contents of the SoE are comprehensively reviewed by legal officers.
The sources reveal that a number of defence witnesses are still to give their statements at the SoE. Summons have been issued and some of the witnesses are said to be in transit to reach the place where the SoE is being recorded.
Defence witnesses not examined include two other lady officers. The reasons for closing the SoE “prematurely” are not known and Army officers are tightlipped about the issue.
Five prosecution witnesses, including the complainant herself and other officers of the unit, gave their statements in the SoE earlier, where they supported the charges against the officers.
Among the defence witnesses, Maj-Gen A. Srivastava, Maj-Gen Air Defence at Western Command and Brig H.P. Singh, a brigade commander, deposed that no allegations of this nature were made against the officers by the complainant when they had interviewed her.
During the SoE, it also transpired that a letter purported to have been written by the colonel to the mother of the complainant alleging misconduct on her part was fake.
A unit clerk deposed that he did not type any such letter on the computer and also testified that the handwriting on the letter was not that of the colonel.
It may be recalled that a woman lieutenant serving with an air defence unit had alleged that she had been raped by her commanding officer and molested by another officer from the unit. The Army had thereafter ordered a court of inquiry into the matter and initiated disciplinary proceedings.
