JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the constitution has been filed by Ruval Kumar Vasave convicting and Sentencing him for life imprisonment by the General Court Martial, which was confirmed by the Major General, Army Head Quarters, New Delhi on 28-11-1977. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order passed by the Chief of the Army staff, Army Head quarters, New Delhi, dismissing the petitioner's appeal on 25-7-1979. 2. The facts are these. The petitioner was employed as Sepoy Driver and was posted and attached to 18 A.S.C. Battalion, Ranchi in the year 1976. The regimental number of the petitioner was 13835249 A.S.C. (M.T.). At that time R.N. Borah and S.K. Sen were also posted at Ranchi. 3. On 8th May, 1976, sometime at about 8 p. m. the petitioner alongwith R.N. Borah and Sri Dass (a civilian friend of the petitioner No. 1) went in auto rickshaw to the house of Miss. Shanti, a young girl of questionable character. Miss. Shanti was not present in the house. Shanti's mother Smt. Kripa Topno wife of Vimal Topno was present. On enquiry by the petitioner Ruval Kumar Vasave regarding where abouts of Shanti, her mother replied that Shanti had gone with one Sri Murthy and his wife. She further told the petitioner that Shanti was taken away by him (Murthy) on the pretext that sepoy Driver Ruval Kumar Vasave (The petitioner) would be coming to his house. The petitioner informed Smt. Kripa Topno that he had not met Shanti. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner, R.N. Borah and Sri Dass boarded the auto rickshaws alongwith Smt. Topno and came to the 18 A.S.C. Bn. Unit Gate. The petitioner Ruval Kumar Vasave got down from the auto rickshaw and went inside the unit lines and brought with him sepoy Driver S.K. Sen. All the five persons, thereafter, went to the house of Murthy in the auto rickshaw. Shanti was brought from inside the house of Murthy. All the persons alongwith Shanti came back to 18 A.S.C. Bn. Unit Gate in the same auto rickshaw. On reaching unit gate, the petitioner instructed sepoy Driver S.K. Sen and Sepoy Driver R.N. Borah to take Shanti to School Building of Municipal Primary School Karamtoli. Smt. Kripa Topno was sent back to her house in the auto rickshaw. 5. All the persons alongwith Shanti came back to 18 A.S.C. Bn. Unit Gate in the same auto rickshaw. On reaching unit gate, the petitioner instructed sepoy Driver S.K. Sen and Sepoy Driver R.N. Borah to take Shanti to School Building of Municipal Primary School Karamtoli. Smt. Kripa Topno was sent back to her house in the auto rickshaw. 5. At about 10 P.M. there was a fall in the unit (Rear 18 A.S.C. Bn.) sepoy, Driver S.K. Sen came running and joined that the fall - in. Before joining the falling, sepoy Driver S.K. Sen had some talk with the petitioner Ruval Kumar Vasave. In the fall-in Sepoy Driver R.N. Borah and two others were found absent. After 40 Minutes, the fall - in was dispersed. It was thereafter, that sepoy Driver S.K. Sea, who subsequently figured as accused No. 3 in the case giving rise to the present writ petition informed Hav. Ram Kishan that Sepoy Driver R.N. Borah had been surrendered by some civilians and he (Sepoy Driver A.S.C. Borah) be rescued. Hav. Ram Kishan instructed Sepoy Driver S.K. Sen to take some personnel and rescue sepoy, Driver A.S.C. Borah. Sepoy Driver S.K. Sen took sepoy Driver Ram Chandra alongwith him. L.N.K V. D. Panicker also accompanied sepoy Driver S.K. Sen and Sepoy Driver Ram Chandra. No trace or of Sepoy Driver A.S.C. Borah was found by these persons. Thereafter, sepoy Driver S.K. Sen suggested that they should go ahead in order to find out Sepoy Driver A.S.C. Borah. Ultimately, Sepoy Driver S.K. Sen pointed out that some people were seen in the school area (Municipal Primary School, Karamtoli, Ranchi). Sepoy Driver S.K. Sen and Sepoy Driver Ra n Chandra went ahead while the three other followed them at some distance. 6. As soon as Sepoy Driver Ram Chandra reached near the Verandah of the school, he was assaulted with iron rod by the petitioner Ruval Kumar Vasave - Ram Chandra fell down on the ground. He was again assaulted by Ruval Kumar Vasave. When L.N.K Balu Ram reached the place of occurrance he was assaulted by Sepoy Driver S.K. Sen with a cycle chain. He ran away from the spot; 7. The fall - in was when ordered, on are checking, it was found that sepoy Driver Ram Chandra and others were absent. He was again assaulted by Ruval Kumar Vasave. When L.N.K Balu Ram reached the place of occurrance he was assaulted by Sepoy Driver S.K. Sen with a cycle chain. He ran away from the spot; 7. The fall - in was when ordered, on are checking, it was found that sepoy Driver Ram Chandra and others were absent. Thereafter, a search was made and the dead body of Sepoy Driver Ram Chandra was found near the Mango tree at some distance from Municipal Primary School, Karamtoli, Ranchi. 8. Captain N.D. Sharma of the same unit, who had also arrived, Lodged his written report at the police station Lalpur At the time of lodging of the report, it appeared that sepoy Driver Ram Chandra had been done to death by some civilians. However, suspicion arose against three persons i.e. Ruval Kumar Vasave, the petitioner, A.S.C. Borah and S.K Sen. The accused persons were immediately kept in the Quarter Guard of the 18 A.S.C. En. The two officers of the Battalion held that Court of Inquiry, During the course of Court of Inquiry and on the period when the accused persons were in the Quarter Guard, the accused persons were interrogated. All the three persons mentioned above were thereafter, sheeted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having murdered Sepoy Driver Ram Chander on the night of the 8/9th May, 1976. The petitioner and other two accused pleaded not guilty. 8. The case of the petitioner was that he was in the unit at the time when the occurrence took place and, as such, that he could not be held guilty of the offence. 9. The autopsy of the dead body of the Rans Chandra of 18 A.S.C. Bn. was conducted by Dr. R.S. Prasad, who found the following injuries on his persons :- Abrasions 1. 7 x 2 c.m. rectangular associated with bruises on the right half of the neck below the right ear. 2. 2 x 2 c.m. on the right side of the head, behind the right ear. 3. 2 x 3 c.m. associated with bruises on the outer - side of right shoulder point. 4. 5 X c.m. and. 5. 2 X c.m. on the back of right elbow. 6. ? X ? c.m. on the front part of right knee. 7. 2 x 2 c.m. on the right side of the head, behind the right ear. 3. 2 x 3 c.m. associated with bruises on the outer - side of right shoulder point. 4. 5 X c.m. and. 5. 2 X c.m. on the back of right elbow. 6. ? X ? c.m. on the front part of right knee. 7. 6 x 2 c.m. on the back of the right arm with bruises. 10. In the General Court Martial, the prosecution produced as many as 21 witnesses and also filed documents which included the post mortem report and the recovery memo relating to iron rod, with which the deceased was killed. This iron rod was taken out by the accused No. 1 (sep. Driver Ruval Kumar Vasave) himself from the vehicle in which it was hidden. 11. From the evidence, the General Court Martial was satisfied that Miss. Chanti was brought from the house of Murthy. The statements, of Sep. Driver R.S. Niak (P.W. 4), N.K.S. Fernandis (P.W. 5), Shanti (P.W.7), Smt. Kripa Topno (P.W.I.S.) and Sri Dass (C.W.1) were recorded. The accused persons in their statements are the trial (Exhibits 'T', 'U' ; by also admitted this fact, it was established from the record that the petitioner new Shanti well. Smt. Kripa Topno, P.W. 18, stated that he had even once slept at night in her house with Shanti. She stated that he had promised to Marry Shanti. 12. From the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it was established that accused No. 3 sepoy Driver S.K. Sen had taken the deceased Ram Chandra to the school by telling him that some persons were standing there. Ram Chandra, Deceased, went to the school, where he was killed by the accused - Petitioner No. 1. 13. There was evidence to show that Sepoy Driver Ruval Kumar Vasve, the petitioner and Sepoy Driver Ram Chandra deceased had marked bitterness bordering on enmity between them. It appears that the petitioner had been humbled by the deceased Sepoy Driver Ram Chandra on some occasions and (Ruval Kumar Vasave) was animated by the sense of bendetta. 14. After considering the entire material, the General Court Martial found the petitioner and two others to be guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The General Court Martial awarded the life imprisonment to the petitioner as well as to others. The case was, thereafter, sent for confirmation. 14. After considering the entire material, the General Court Martial found the petitioner and two others to be guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The General Court Martial awarded the life imprisonment to the petitioner as well as to others. The case was, thereafter, sent for confirmation. M. Thomas, Major General, General Officer Commanding, 9 Infantry Division on 19th October, 1977 sent the case back with a direction that the accused person Should be given a further opportunity to address the Court. 15. The pursuance of the aforesaid order, further opportunity was given and the case against the petitioner and two other accused persons was reconsidered. The General Court Martial, thereafter, parsed the following Order "The Court having attentively considered the observations of the confirming authority, and the whole of the proceedings ; do now respectfully adhere to their finding and Sentence in respect of the accused No. 13835249 Sept Ruval Vasave of 18 Army Service Sorps Battalian. This order of the General Court Martial dated 1st November, 1977 was sent for confirmation to the General Officer Commanding, who passed the following order. "I confirm the finding and the sentence of the Court. I reject the pre-confirmation petition there being no merit. I further direct that the sentence of imprisonment for life shall be carried out by confirment in a civil prison in division 'C' or class III). If there are only two divisions of prisoners, the accused is recommended division 'B' (or II)." 16. The petitioner, after the confirmation of findings and Sentence, filed representation to Chief of the Army Stall under Section 164. The representation was dismissed on 25-7-1979. Thereafter, the present petition was filed. 17. Sri R.R. Tribedi, learned counsel for l he petitioner moved an application taking a new ground relating to non - compliance of Rule 22 of the Army Rules, lie urged that as the investigation of charges was not made in accordance with the Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules, the whole of the proceedings are vitiated. We have gone through the record of the General Court Martial proceedings produced before us. We have gone through the record of the General Court Martial proceedings produced before us. From the record of that case, it appears that the proceedings under Rule 22 had been undertaken and the petitioner No. 1 had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced there, furthermore, Rule 22 was only - a sort of preliminary investigation to find out or ascertain whether there existed any prima facie case to proceed with it or not. earned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to which particular procedure, which was required to be observed and under taken under Rule 22, had not been followed. The record of this case indicates that witnesses had been cross - examined. Consequently, it appears to us that the argument of the petitioner on this point, has no Substance. 18. The second argument of the petitioner's learned counsel was that there was no reliable evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He referred to the statement of B.W. 11. Major Raj Pal Singh, who stated in the cross - examination that he had been tortured by his department and that the earlier statement made by him against the petitioner was not correct. It is true that this witness had gone back on the statement which he made earlier in the examination-in-chief, but he was not the only statement involving the petitioner in the offence. There were a number of witnesses who deposed about the simplicity of the petitioner in the offence. True, it is, that some of them were not eye witnesses. But if the evidence of all of them was taken together and it was found on that basis that (he petitioner had caused murder of Sepoy Driver Ram Chandra, it is not possible for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside the conviction. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit as a Court of Appeal and, as such, is not entitled to re-appraise evidence and come to its own findings. The Army Act and the Rules framed thereunder provides the procedure relating to the investigation and trial of an army personnel and the proceedings if under the Act had become final, this Court cannot, under Article 226 of the Constitution reverse that finding. The Army Act and the Rules framed thereunder provides the procedure relating to the investigation and trial of an army personnel and the proceedings if under the Act had become final, this Court cannot, under Article 226 of the Constitution reverse that finding. The petitioner's counsel failed to satisfy us that the General Court Martial proceeding holding the petitioner to be guilty of offence is either mala fide or is not based on the evidence. The Army Act makes the findings and Sentences of the Court Martial final, conclusive and binding upon all. We could not be satisfied that the petitioner did not have a fair trial in the General Court Martial. 19. For what we have stated above, we do not find and Substance in this writ petition and dismiss the same without any order as to costs. The petitioner can still approach for pardon and remission under Section 179 of the Army Act to the relevant authority.