UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus SANDEEP KUMAR ETC.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 415 · Decided: 13-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
415
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
SANDEEP KUMAR ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1388-1389 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – s.15 – Power of the
Tribunal – 71 Armoured Regiment was deputed for T-90 Tanks
conversion training at Pokhran Firing Range– Convoy moved from
Patiala to Pokhran – Weapons were carried in locked boxes–
Physical check of weapons carried out and the Officer Squadron
Commander (PW-1) confirmed that there were 50 pistols– At the
end of conversion exercise, loss of 2 pistols was reported–
Respondents-accused charged for committing theft of two pistols –
As per the prosecution, the pistols were stolen when accused were
posted at Pokharan Field Firing Ranges – District Court Martial
(DCM) convicted the accused with rigorous imprisonment for 1 year
and six months and dismissal from service – Set aside by the Armed
Forces Tribunal, directing reinstatement of both the accused– Held:
Primary evidence of the prosecution is the confessional statements
made by the accused – Tribunal completely misread Army Order
No. 256 of 1972 to hold that the confessional statements are
inadmissible having been made to the Army – In the present case,
PW-1 is the Squadron Commander before whom the accused made
oral confession, who took the accused to PW-6 (Second-in-
Command of the Regiment) –Under the orders of PW-1 and PW-6,
the accused confessed before the entire Squadron – Accused then
made written confession, recording of which is video-recorded as
well – In terms of s.133 of the 1950 Act r/w s.25, Evidence Act, the
statement made before Police Officer such as Military Police Officer
alone is inadmissible in evidence and not the statement made before
other persons – Therefore, such confession is not hit by s.25,
Evidence Act r/w. s.133, 1950 Act and the Army Order – Further, no
reason not to take into consideration the scanned copies of the
original handwritten slips in evidence, as PW-1 & PW-6 are the
persons who saw the originals and deposed that the scanned copies
   [2019] 12 S.C.R. 415
415
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
416
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
are the same as originals – Power of the Tribunal u/s.15 is wide but
such wide powers do not confer jurisdiction to reverse the findings
merely because the Tribunal finds that different view is possible–
Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction while setting aside the order of
conviction passed by the DCM – Criminal appeals filed by the Union
of India are allowed, while that of the accused are dismissed –
However, the sentence imposed upon the accused is reduced to the
extent already undergone – Army Act, 1950 – s.133 – Evidence Act,
1872– ss.1, 25 – Army Rules, 1954 – r.58.
Army Rules, 1954 – r.58 – 71 Armoured Regiment was deputed
for T-90 Tanks conversion training at Pokhran Firing Range – At
the end of conversion exercise, loss of 2 pistols was reported –
Respondents-accused charged for committing theft of two pistols –
Prosecution case based upon written confessional statements made
by accused – Retraction of the confessional statements – Effect of
– Held: In addition to the confessional statements, oral confessions
were made before Squadron Commander (PW-1) and PW-6 (Second
in Command of the Regiment)– PW-6 was not cross-examined in
respect of any involuntary nature of the confession or that he gave
beatings to the accused as averred by them in their statements u/
r.58 –None of the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined in
respect of threats/beatings inflicted on any of the two accused –
Such statement of the accused u/r.58 is to explain the circumstances
appearing in evidence against him– Accused could not set up
defence with which none of the prosecution witness was confronted
with – Therefore,  the retraction of the confessional statements made
in their statement u/r.58 is of no consequence.
Army Act, 1950 – s.133 r/w s.25, 1872 Act – Held: In terms of
s.133 r/w s.25, Evidence Act, the statement made before Police
Officer such as Military Police Officer alone is inadmissible in
evidence and not the statement made before other persons – Evidence
Act, 1872 – s.25.
Army Rules, 1954 – r.58 – 71 Armoured Regiment was deputed
for T-90 Tanks conversion training at Pokhran Firing Range – At
the end of conversion exercise, loss of 2 pistols was reported–
Respondents-accused charged for committing theft of pistols–
District Court Martial (DCM) convicted the accused – Set aside by
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
417
the Arm

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