In Brief
A soldier was convicted by Court Martial for the murder of a fellow soldier after a firing incident at an army range. The Armed Forces Tribunal set aside the conviction and ordered a de novo inquiry from the Court of Inquiry stage, finding procedural non-compliance with Rule 180 (which requires the accused's presence during witness statements). The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order re-trial on grounds other than those specified in Section 16(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act—namely, newly available evidence. Procedural irregularities at pre-trial stages cannot vitiate a Court Martial conviction if not raised timely. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's remand order, and directed reconsideration of a pending transfer application.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.