The case revolves around an incident that occurred in March 1998, involving the death of Signalman U.D. Garje. The deceased was allegedly involved in an altercation with the wife of Flight Lieutenant S. Verma (accused No.3) after he was sent to repair a telephone at her residence. Following the incident, Flight Lieutenant Verma reported the matter to the respondent, who was in charge of the squadron. Subsequently, the deceased was allegedly summoned for questioning but gave evasive answers, leading the respondent to order his confinement to the Guards' room.

On 6th March 1998, the deceased was placed in a gypsy vehicle, driven by the respondent, along with accused Nos. 3 and 4. While being transported to the Guards' room, the deceased allegedly jumped out of the vehicle, ran, and fell into a ditch, sustaining injuries. He died in the hospital a day later, on 7th March 1998.

The GCM found the respondent and his co-accused guilty of various offences, including manslaughter (Section 304 Part II, read with Section 149 IPC) and unlawful confinement (Section 342 IPC). The respondent was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment, which was later commuted to two years in a civil prison by the Chief of the Air Staff. The sentence of cashiering (dismissal from service) was, however, upheld. The co-accused were reprimanded, with their past service forfeited for promotion and pension purposes.

The respondent, aggrieved by the conviction, filed a writ petition, which was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal after its establishment. The Tribunal, in its judgment dated 14th May 2010, found that the GCM's findings lacked sufficient evidence to support the charges. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the respondent's conviction and granted him consequential reliefs, excluding back wages.

In analyzing the case, the Tribunal critically assessed the evidence presented during the GCM trial. The prosecution relied on testimony from several witnesses, including eyewitness accounts of the respondent's actions. However, the Tribunal found that there was no conclusive evidence linking the respondent to the actual cause of death. It noted that while the respondent had directed the deceased to be confined to the Guards' room, there was no evidence that he had physically assaulted or caused the deceased's injuries. The injuries sustained by the deceased were more likely caused by his fall into the ditch, as confirmed by medical testimony.

The prosecution's case rested heavily on the testimony of various witnesses who claimed to have seen the respondent involved in the incident. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies and inconsistencies in their accounts. Notably, while some witnesses claimed to have seen the respondent with a stick or in the vicinity of the deceased, none provided direct evidence of him inflicting harm. Medical evidence also revealed that the injuries suffered by the deceased were consistent with a fall, rather than an assault.

The Tribunal also examined the respondent's statement during the GCM proceedings. The respondent had admitted to instructing that the deceased be confined but emphasized that the confinement was not meant to harm the deceased. Further, he explained that the decision to transport the deceased for identification by the wife of accused No. 3 was made in response to a suggestion, not as part of any ill-intentioned plan. The respondent’s account suggested that there was no malicious intent behind his actions, and that the death was an unfortunate result of the deceased's own actions.

One of the key points raised by the respondent’s defense was that the allegations did not establish a direct causal link between his actions and the death of the deceased. While the prosecution argued that the respondent's instructions to confine the deceased led to the fatal fall, the Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent had caused the injuries that led to the death.

The legal principle of "wrongful confinement" under Section 340 of the IPC was also considered. The Tribunal observed that while the respondent may have initially directed the confinement of the deceased, he had not actually executed the confinement. Instead, the deceased's escape occurred during transport, and no evidence suggested that the respondent had used force to restrain him.

In conclusion, the Armed Forces Tribunal found no merit in the charges against the respondent. The acquittal was based on the absence of evidence proving the respondent’s direct involvement in causing the death of Signalman U.D. Garje. The Tribunal’s decision highlights the importance of establishing a clear link between an accused’s actions and the resulting harm, and serves as a reminder that an order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, which can only be overturned in the face of compelling evidence.

This case underscores the complexities involved in military legal proceedings, particularly when allegations are based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of witnesses with varying accounts. The Tribunal’s judgment reinforces the principle that in criminal law, particularly in serious cases involving loss of life, the burden of proof rests firmly with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.