Signing you in

The Havildar, a washerman by trade, was charged under Section 69 of the Army Act for committing a civil offence, namely using criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, punishable under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

According to the charge, on May 19, 2026, he used criminal force against the woman by allegedly groping her from behind and attempting to cover her mouth with his hands with the intent of outraging her modesty.

According to the complaint submitted by the woman to the Corps Commander, the jawan belonged to an Artillery Regiment and was posted at the official residence of her husband at a military station, where he was also entrusted with the upkeep of a temple on the premises.

The complainant said that when she went to offer prayers at the temple on May 19, the Havildar was already present there. She alleged that he grabbed her from behind and tried to grope her. When she attempted to raise an alarm, he covered her mouth with both his hands. She said she managed to free herself from his grip and ran towards the house, with the Havildar chasing her. He was later apprehended by the guard commander and other troops.

In an alleged confession recorded before Army authorities conducting the court martial, the Havildar admitted that he had been deployed at the Major General’s official residence and was performing his duties at the temple on the morning of May 19.

In his confession, he admitted to the allegation made by the complainant. He also stated that he was later surrounded by guards and beaten up. “I received injuries on my head with bleeding and I went into shock. I do not know whether I was hit with a stone or a lathi. Thereafter I was taken to the hospital,” the statement, recorded on May 24, said.

The Colonel who conducted the Summary Court Martial, in his capacity as the Commanding Officer of the accused, noted that the Havildar had been regularly entrusted with the upkeep and maintenance of the temple at the residence since April 2026.

The Commanding Officer observed that the incident prima facie constituted the offence of using criminal force with intent to outrage a woman’s modesty under Section 74 of the BNS, read with Section 69 of the Army Act, and that the evidence supporting the charge was “to a significant extent, uncontested”.

“In his written and signed statement recorded before me during proceedings under Army Rule 22, the accused unequivocally admitted to having committed the act alleged in the tentative charge sheet. The accused did not cross-examine any of the prosecution witnesses examined during the hearing of the charge,” the Commanding Officer noted.

The Havildar’s alleged voluntary statement was recorded by a Board of Officers constituted by the Brigade Headquarters after satisfying itself that the statement had been made voluntarily in accordance with Army Orders. The proceedings were also recorded through audio-visual means, with the original memory card placed on record.

Justifying the decision to hold a Summary Court Martial, the Commanding Officer said the victim had suffered a serious violation of her dignity and personal safety within the precincts of her own residence.

“Being a sexual offence, there is a solemn obligation towards the victim to ensure that the case is dealt with promptly, discreetly and without further trauma. Undue delay in the disposal of such a case prolongs the distress of the victim and undermines the organisation’s commitment to the safety and dignity of women in its community. Prompt disposal by Summary Court Martial is the most expedient and effective means of discharging this obligation,” he noted.

“He has wrongly been tried by a Summary Court Martial for a charge under Section 69 of the Army Act relating to a civil offence. There is no Reference Order. He was hurriedly tried on the complaint of a General’s wife for allegedly molesting her. To avoid her being questioned by lawyers during trial, his plea of guilty was recorded and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. It would have been fair to try him before a District Court Martial (DCM),” Kumar said.