Those 'Fake' kills...

Jodhpur, July 26: The production of nine more Situation Reports of different companies of the 5/5 Gorkha Rifles have indicated that the real figure of enemy kills is quite different from the one told by Colonel K.D. Singh the Commanding Officer of the battalion during its Siachen tenure last year.Col. Singh produced these SRs on the request of Major Surinder Singh the accused in this case.

In the evening session, Major Singh asked Col. Singh to tell the number of enemy persons killed and injured on the basis of these SRs.After compiling the data from these reports, which were forwarded by his office to the higher headquarter, Col. Singh said that there were 8 enemy kills were reported during the action against enemy’s Chaar Patthar, Chabi Flat and Delta post.

It may be mentioned here that Col. Singh in his statement at the recording of the Summary of Evidence (SoE) had said that the battalion during its Siachen tenure had claimed 45 enemy kills. The figure came in light with production of nine more SRs was apparently unnoticed in different documents produced in support of 5/5 GRs achievements in terms of enemy kills and damages.Col. Singh today also indicated that he is not sure about the genuineness of the fire assault reported by Captain A.K. Gaur on August 8, 2003.

Major Singh asked him to produced two videocassettes containing the video footages of the ‘fake’ kill, which was recorded on Col. Singh’s order.At this point, Col. Singh said that Major Surinder Singh’s contention is incorrect.

“It was you who had reported me on the evening of August 8, 2003 that one enemy has been shot by A.K. Gaur and his men. During my investigation of the kills reported by me Gaur and others have told that the encounter was genuine and not fake. I had never told anyone to fake kill. If you on your own had told so, then I am not aware,” said Col. Singh.

The long list...

Jodhpur, July 25: Major Surinder Singh the accused in the Siachen ‘Killings’ Case has produced a long list of Army officials which he wants to be produced as the Defence witnesses at the recording of the Summary of Evidence (SoE) at Jodhpur. Surprisingly, initially he had also desired to call the Chief of Army Staff and the Northern Army Commander as the defence witnesses.Counsel of the accused in Chandigarh today confirmed that Major Singh had submitted the list containing the name of the COAS and other top Army officials.

Few days back Brigadier Binod Kumar the Officiating Chief of Staff of the Desert Corps had given an ultimatum to the accused directing him to produce the list of defence witnesses in a given timeframe. After that Major Singh produced a list in which was reportedly ‘rejected’ by Brigadier Kumar.

According to the sources, Major Singh had included the name of two news channel reporters, Post Commanders of 17 Jack Rifles and 21 Grenadiers, Dass and Chaukas Post Commanders, one video forensic expert and also Brigadier H.P.S. Bedi the then Brigadier of 102 Infantry Brigade as defence witness.As the previous list was produced, Major Singh was asked to prove the relevance behind calling the COAS and other top officials as defence witnesses.

“Major Singh’s reply failed to satisfy the prosecution side and the first list was turned down. Now a fresh list has been produced by the accused,” said the sources.The new list, according to the sources, includes the name of Captain Prafull Sharma the Medical Officer of the 5/5 Gorkha Rifles, Captain Kalpatra the officer who can be proved important in the ‘Identity Card’ issue, two of the firers at one of the posts under 5/5 GR and the GS Clerk of the battalion.

The Observer

Jodhpur, July 24, 2004: Major Surinder Singh the accused in the Siachen ‘Killings’ Case today objected the presence on an ‘observer’ in the recording room of the Summary of Evidence (SoE).The issue was raised as the morning session started today.

“Can you show me the section of Military Law where there is a provision of an observer during SoE. If the observer is on-duty he should be in the military uniform,” said Major Singh to Brigadier Philip Campose the Officer Recording SoE.

He claimed that there is no such provision and the OR should mention his submission regarding this issue, on record.“I have not permitted anyone at the SoE. If you have any point, just go to your Officer Commanding and submit it,” said the OR. After this, Major Singh talked to his commander and formally submitted his objection about this.

Figures ‘exaggerated’ ??

Jodhpur, July 24: Colonel K.D. Singh the prosecution witness in the Siachen ‘Killings’ Case while appearing at the recording of the Summary of Evidence (SoE) here today said that the ‘exaggerated’ figure about the number of enemy kills, shown in the 5/5 Gorkha Rifles presentation, was just a ‘human error of compilation’ or a ‘typographical error’.

Answering a question asked by Major Surinder Singh the accused in this case, Col. Singh said that the video presentation, prepared on the order of the then General Officer Commander of 3, Infantry Division, was just an informational document and ought not be given ‘undue importance’.

Col. Singh today failed to convince Major Singh about the anomaly about the figure of enemy kills claimed by the battalion during its Siachen tenure. Col. Singh was provided all the situation reports and the special situation reports reporting the action of any forward company for the period of July 7 to October 7, 2003.

“After perusing these situation reports and adequately satisfying yourself, can you tell the number of enemy persons killed or injured by the battalion during this period,” asked Major Singh. Col. Singh after compiling the data from all the situation reports and said that according to the documents, 32 enemy soldiers were killed, one probably killed, seven were wounded or killed and six others were probably injured or killed.

After this, the similar question was asked while giving the situation reports of ‘action’ of the period after October 7 to November 24, 2003. Col. Singh replied that these reports claim kills of four enemy personnel. At this point referring a part of Col. Singh’s statement, Major Singh said that at that time, he had claimed that the battalion during its Siachen tenure had claimed 45 enemy kills.

Col. Singh claimed that his statement was not false. He added all the figures including those reported as ‘probably killed’, ‘wounded’ and ‘probably injured or killed’. The sum of these comes to 50. “From this, if we subtract five kills, which were reported by you after faking the encounter, the result is 45,” said Col. Singh.Now, Major Singh shown one of the slides of the video presentation that was prepared and sent on October 10, 2003 for submission to the higher headquarter. The annotated slide reports the enemy kills as 46.

Whereas, by the date of preparation of the said presentation, only 32 ‘confirmed kills’ were reported by the situation reports. When asked about the reason behind this, once again Col. Singh said that the Load Manifest Officer of the battalion, Major Vikram Sharma had prepared the presentation and he had not seen it before dispatch.

“It may be a human error of compilation or a typographical error. These presentations were meant for information and ought not be given undue importance,” he added. Explaining the possible logic behind the figure of ’46 kills’, Col. Singh said that, till the preparation of the said presentation, he had not informed Major Sharma about the fake kills reported by Major Surinder Singh and hence he had included those five kills in this figure.

While stating this, Col. Singh contradicted his previous statement in which he had said that the two kills reported on September 21 were not included in the October 10 presentation as he himself had instructed Major Sharma for its exclusion.

HT Correspondent

Jodhpur, July 23, 2004:
Colonel K.D. Singh the first witness in the Siachen ‘Killings’ Case today said that the contradiction in his statements, regarding the CDs containing the video presentations of the ‘actions’ of the 5/5 Gorkha Rifles in Siachen, is due to play of memory.

Major Surinder Singh the accused in this case asked Col. Singh that earlier he had stated that three VCDs, sent to the 102 Infantry Brigade, were destroyed by them. “But, later on the brigade headquarter sent those CDs. Will it be correct to say that you had intentionally given the false statement to conceal the truth,” he asked.

“This may be a play of memory,” replied Col. Singh adding that during the Court of Inquiry (CoI), he had asked for some CDs and was informed that they had been destroyed. “I mixed-up these CDs with the those sent with the video presentation,” he said.

During evening session, Major Singh asked Col. Singh whether the then General Officer Commanding (GOC), while visiting the Glacier area between October 6 and 9, 2003, had directed to submit the video presentation. Col. Singh replied in affirmation.Major Singh now questioned Col. Singh’s that statement in which he had said that he had not seen the video presentation of October 10, as there was a paucity of time. “If you were directed in advance, then where was the paucity of time,” he said.

HT Jodhpur July 23, 2004

“Are media persons, covering recording of the Summary of Evidence (SoE) in the Siachen ‘Killings’ Case, under observation of the Army?” Asked the media persons today when they noticed an unidentified person sitting at the media gallery of SoE.

The person in plain cloths, about whom the question was asked, was present in the recording room since last two sessions. Media persons regularly covering the SoE when found a new face among them, they asked about his whereabouts.

The man, indicating that he is not from any newspaper, said that, “Main aise hi baitha hoon.”Contrary to the common practice of taking detail note of every person going inside the SoE room, this person was not asked to make any entry in the register available at the security officer.

The register had the entry for Major Surinder Singh the accused in this case, Col. K.D. Singh the first prosecution witness, Ashok Kumar Yadav the independent witness and four journalists. When the media persons were sitting in the waiting room, they also ‘feel’ presence of an observer around them. During the tea break, the issue was raised with Major Ajay Shah the officer dealing with the security matters during the SoE.

“Is anyone allowed inside the recording room without having any entry in the security register?” was their question. “He is the court observer and it is a common practice having them during the SoE,” replied Shah.After a few minutes it was informed that the said ‘observer’ is Lt. Col. Natrajan and he is going to enter his name in the register.

When the morning session was adjourned, the media persons asked Lt. Col. Natrajan the purpose behind his visit at the SoE as a court observer. First he said that he was on leave and came at SoE just to see it. “Anyone including law students can come and observe this,” he said.

After few seconds, replying yet another question, he said that he is an observer and will keep coming as and when required. Today it was an eventful day outside the recording room. During the tea break, Col. K.D. Singh suddenly entered in the rest room where the journalists were sitting. Fuming at the reports coming in media, Col. Singh said that the press is trying to defame him. “Do you know that I was one of the most respectable officer of the Indian Army? And you are trying to defame my image. Even if there is a slip of memory from my side, media start thinking that the case has taken a new turn,” he said.

HT Jodhpur, July 22, 2004

The recording of the Summary of Evidence (SoE) in the Siachen ‘Killings’ Case today witnessed Major Surinder Singh the accused in this case alleging the Army for not providing key documents related to this case.

Expressing his inability to carry on the cross-examination of Colonel K.D. Singh the then Commanding Officer of the 5/5 Gorkha Rifles, Major Singh said that he has not got the original documents and video CDs of the ‘action’ reported by the battalion.

“What is the reason that they are not providing any of the documents or material in which there is an involvement of Col. Singh. I have got a letter from higher officials in which they have clearly mentioned that they can not provide the Battle Damage Assessment List of the 5/5 GR,” said Singh.The headquarter of the 102 Infantry Brigade today send few more documents according to the list presented by Major Singh few days back.

The material sent by the brigade headquarter include the situation reports of some of the ‘actions’ and two video CDs containing video footages of the action.Brigadier Philip Campose the Officer Recording (SoE) while reading out the covering letter along with this material informed that one of the video CD contains copies of all the videos submitted by the 5/5 GR.

“The other CD is reportedly contains the ‘action’ of the battalion on 6,7 and 8 August 2003,” he added.Major Singh was not satisfied with the material provided to prove his point at the SoE.

“The copies of the excerpts of the original videocassettes are already available as the exhibit material. I had demanded for the originals which are not being provided by the higher authorities,” he said.The OR, SoE said that the accused is free to raise his point at his present CO.

The proceedings were adjourned for evening with Major Singh preparing yet another letter for Brigadier Binod Kumar the Officiating Chief of Staff of the Desert Corps. Earlier when the morning session started, Major Singh asked Col. Singh about few of the ‘anomalies’ in the Identity Card Record Register of the 5/5 GR.

“Why you yourself have made the entry regarding the destruction of your old identity card,” he asked. Col. Singh replied that it was not wrong for him, as a CO, to make some factual entries in such manner.