1999 Army patrol firing case: J&K High Court upholds acquittal of BSF personnel

A bench of Justices Sanjay Dhar and Rajesh Sekhri observed: “Unfortunately, respondents have been roped in, merely on the basis of suspicion, otherwise, there is absolutely no evidence to establish that respondents had deliberately fired upon the Army patrol party."

Srinagar: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently upheld the acquittal of the Border Security Force (BSF) personnel in the contentious Army patrol firing case from the night of July 16 and July 17, 1999, during the Kargil War.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Dhar and Rajesh Sekhri observed: “Unfortunately, respondents have been roped in, merely on the basis of suspicion, otherwise, there is absolutely no evidence to establish that respondents had deliberately fired upon the Army patrol party."

The court reviewed an appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court, which had acquitted the defendants of charges under Sections 302/307/34 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The prosecution's case centered around an incident involving an army patrol party led by Lieutenant Sanjiv Dahiya.

As the patrol party approached a BSF bunker en route to a forward post, it was alleged that the BSF personnel on duty fired upon them, resulting in the tragic death of three army personnel and severe injuries to another soldier. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of serious injuries sustained by witness Keshav Singh, which undermined the credibility of their case. Without medical evidence or documentation, the prosecution's claims were weakened.

Considering that the incident occurred during the outbreak of the Kargil War, the bench noted that forces on the border were ordered to be vigilant with restricted movement and shoot-at-sight orders to prevent enemy infiltration. The bench recorded, "Pertinently, the restrictions were not for the common people only but forces were also advised to exercise restraint to coordinate between themselves as and when they were expected to move along the border."

According to witness testimonies, coordination between forces was maintained through daily-changing passwords. During the incident, amidst rain, thunderstorm, and firing from across the border, a lack of coordination between the Indian Army and the BSF resulted in the casualties, the bench stated.

The bench remarked that suspicion, no matter how great, cannot replace legal proof, and conviction cannot be sustained merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the sole testimony of the injured was not corroborated by any prosecution witness and did not inspire confidence to sustain a conviction.