Supreme Court Acquits Wing Commander in Custodial Death Case: Union of India vs. M.S. Mander (2024)

Date of the Judgment: November 6, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 842

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can a person be held criminally liable for the death of another when the death was caused by a fall and not by a direct assault? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a Wing Commander of the Indian Air Force. The core issue was whether the Wing Commander could be held responsible for the death of a signalman who died after falling into a ditch while allegedly trying to escape custody. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of signalman UD Garje on March 7, 1998. On March 3, 1998, Garje was sent to repair a telephone at the residence of Flight Lieutenant Mr. S. Verma. Following an alleged incident of misbehavior by Garje with Mr. Verma’s wife, the matter was reported to the respondent, Wing Commander M.S. Mander, who then reported it to the station commander. The station commander instructed Mander to inquire into the matter before taking any action. Mander then asked Mr. Verma to secure Garje’s presence. When Garje did not appear, Mander ordered that Garje be brought in. The allegation against Mander is that when Garje gave evasive answers, he directed that Garje be confined to the Guards’ room. On March 6, 1998, while being transported in a gypsy vehicle driven by Mander, Garje allegedly jumped out of the vehicle and fell into a ditch, sustaining injuries. He died in the hospital the next day.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent, along with four other officers, was tried by a General Court Martial (GCM). The GCM found the respondent guilty of offences under Section 304 Part II, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 342 of IPC, and Sections 45 and 65 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (AFA). He was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and cashiering. The Chief of the Air Staff confirmed the conviction but reduced the imprisonment to two years in civil prison. The respondent challenged his conviction by filing a writ petition, which was later transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the petition, setting aside the respondent’s conviction. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the concept of common intention in a group and makes every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed in furtherance of the common object.
• Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for wrongful confinement.
• Section 45 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (AFA): This section deals with unbecoming conduct by an officer.
• Section 65 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (AFA): This section deals with committing an act prejudicial to good order and discipline of the Air Force.
• Section 71 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (AFA): This section deals with the commission of civil offences.
• Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines wrongful confinement. It states that whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said to wrongfully confine that person.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India):

• The prosecution argued that the respondent was responsible for the death of the signalman, as he had ordered him to be confined to the Guards’ room.
• The appellants relied on the evidence of several prosecution witnesses who identified the respondent.
• Witnesses testified to seeing the respondent with a stick and entering the Air Crew Rest Room (ACRR), followed by noises.
• The respondent admitted to picking up the deceased and carrying him in a gypsy vehicle for the purpose of confining him to a Guards’ room.
• The prosecution argued that the first and third to fifth charges were proved against the respondent as he admitted that he wanted to put the deceased in solitary confinement.

Arguments by the Respondent (Wing Commander M.S. Mander):

• The respondent argued that the prosecution’s case does not establish that the deceased was pushed out of the gypsy vehicle.
• No witness testified to seeing the respondent use any weapon or stick.
• The respondent argued that no witness has alleged that the deceased was assaulted by the respondent or any other accused.
• The injuries sustained by the deceased were clearly due to a fall in a concrete ditch, with no lacerations or deep cuts on the scalp.
• The Tribunal’s finding of fact was that there was no evidence against the respondent, and therefore, even the other three charges cannot be sustained.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the respondent was responsible for the death of the deceased.
2. Whether the respondent had committed offences under Sections 71, 45 and 65 of the Air Force Act, 1950.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines punishment for murder.
• Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines common intention in a group.
• Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines the punishment for wrongful confinement.
• Section 45 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (AFA): Deals with unbecoming conduct.
• Section 65 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (AFA): Deals with acts prejudicial to good order.
• Section 71 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (AFA): Deals with civil offences.
• Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines wrongful confinement.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered the provisions of the IPC and AFA to determine whether the charges against the respondent were proved.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of direct evidence linking the respondent to the death of the signalman. The Court emphasized that the injuries sustained by the deceased were consistent with a fall, and there was no evidence of any assault by the respondent or any other accused. The Court also noted that the respondent’s intention to confine the deceased was not the direct cause of his death, as the deceased had jumped out of the vehicle and fell into a ditch. The Court also considered that the respondent had changed his mind about confining the deceased and was taking him for identification.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the lack of supporting evidence. The Court reasoned that the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the respondent’s actions and the death of the signalman. The Court emphasized that the injuries were consistent with a fall and not an assault.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle that an accused cannot be held liable for an offence unless the prosecution proves the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the respondent had assaulted the deceased or that his actions directly caused the death.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “There is no evidence to show that any act was done by the respondent with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased as is likely to cause death.”
• “There is no act shown to have been committed by the respondent which has any direct connection with the cause of death of the deceased.”
• “After having carefully perused the oral evidence, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are plausible findings which could have been reasonably recorded based on the evidence on record.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. Both judges on the bench agreed with the decision.

Key Takeaways

• Lack of direct evidence of assault is crucial in criminal cases.
• Injuries sustained from a fall cannot be attributed to an assault without sufficient evidence.
• The prosecution must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.
• The intention to confine someone does not automatically lead to liability for their death if the death is caused by an intervening event.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of custodial death, the prosecution must establish a direct link between the actions of the accused and the cause of death. The mere intention to confine someone is not sufficient to establish criminal liability for their death if the death is caused by an intervening event like a fall. This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India, upholding the acquittal of Wing Commander M.S. Mander. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the respondent’s actions and the death of the signalman. The Court emphasized that the injuries were consistent with a fall and not an assault, and the respondent’s intention to confine the deceased was not the direct cause of his death.