AJAY KUMAR SINGH versus THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 957 · Decided: 13-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 5 S.C.R. 957 
AJAY KUMAR SINGH 
v. 
THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-JN-CHIEF & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 325of2012) 
JULYl3,2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI AND R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 342 and 392 rlw. s.25(1-A) of Arms Act ands. 77(2) of 
Navy Act, 1957 - Bunk robbery by 3 Navy officials - Court Martial 
trial - Conviction on the basis of the witnesses PWs 14 and 18 
(Bank Manager and Clerk) - Their dismissal with disgrace 
alongwith other consequential penalties - In statutory appeal 
conviction confirmed - Armed Forces Tribunal disbelieved the 
identification of the three accused persons by PWs 14 and 18 -
Convicted the accused 'AK' and 'UK' on the basis of evidence of 
Fingerprint Expert proving the chance fingerprint to be that of 
appellants 'AK' and 'UK' - Appellant 'DK' was acquitted giving 
him benefit of doubt -Appeals by accused 'AK' and 'UK' assailing 
their conviction and by accused 'DK' seeking his reinstatement in 
service in view of his acquittal - Held: Evidence of PWs 14 and 18 
as regards the identification of the accused persons could not have 
been disbelieved - The lapses in the evidence of the fingerprint 
expert cannot result in acquittal of the two appellants 'AK' and 
'UK' - So far as the third appellant 'DK' is concerned though his 
identification as accused in confirmed as evidence of PWs J.I and 
18 are reliable, but in absence of States appeal against his acquiual, 
his acquittal cannot be interfered with - He cannot claim 
reinstatement as he has been acquitted giving benefit of doubt - An 
employee can claim reinstatement only when he has been honourably 
acquitted - Even in view that he was identified by PWs 14 and 18, 
he cannot be reinstated -Arms Act, 1959 - s. 25 {1-A) - Navy Act, 
1957 - s. 77(2) - Service Law - Reinstatement. 
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - s.30 - Power under - Scope 
of - Held: In exercise ofp01rer u/s.30,Supreme Court normally does 
not reappreciate the evidence and is slow in inte1:fering with the 
findings of the Armed Forces Tribunal, unless there is substantial 
question of public importance. 
957 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
958 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
Service Law - Reinstatement - Acquittal in criminal case does 
not entitle a person to automatic reinstatement - Only if the employee 
is acquitted honourably (not on benefit of doubt), he can claim 
reinstatement. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In exercise of power under Section 30 of the 
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, this Court normally does not re-
appreciate the evidence and is slow to interfere with the findings 
of the tribunal unless there is substantial question of public 
importance. But when it is found that appreciation of evidence in 
a given case is vitiated by serious error, this Court can re-
appreciate the evidence and interfere with the findings. [Para 
17] [968-G] 
1.2 The tribunal was not right in disbelieving the evidence 
of PW-14 (Manager) and PW-18 (Cashier) as to the identification 
of the appellants as the culprits who committed robbery in the 
bank. They have clearly spoken about the occurrence that on 
the date of incident, three persons entered into the bank and 
threatened PW-14 and PW-18 by showing gun and committed 
robbery in the bank. Since they were still at work in the bank at 
the time of the incirlent, it is reasonable to assume that there was 
enough light to do so inside the bank. From the evidence of PW-
14 and PW-18, it is clear that the incident lasted for a brief period 
during which the appellants were talking to each other. As per 
the evidence of PW-14 and PW-18, while the culprits were so 
conversing lifting their visors, they were able to see the culprits. 
It is obvious that the extraordinary situation, in which the 
incidence occurred must have left an indelible impression in the 
mind of the witnesses about the identity of the culprits. 
Immediately after the incident, PW-14 (Manager) lodged the 
complaint before Police Station wherein he gave the descriptive 
particulars of the three culprits namely their age, height, colour 
complexion etc. and also given the details of the weapons. Identity 
of the appellants by PW-14 and PW-18 in the court is also 
corroborated by identification of the appellants by PW-14 and PW-
18 in the test identification parade. [Paras 12 and 14] [965-D-G] 
1.3 Evidence of PW-15-Fingerprint Expert incriminates the 
appellants AK and UK. However, in proving this incri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.