Supreme Court acquits Wing Commander in custodial death case: Union of India vs. M.S. Mander (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: November 6, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 842

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

Can a superior officer be held criminally responsible for the death of a subordinate who sustained fatal injuries while attempting to escape custody? This question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court of India judgment. The case involved a Wing Commander who was accused of causing the death of a subordinate who jumped from a vehicle and sustained fatal injuries. The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the evidence and the findings of the Armed Forces Tribunal, ultimately upholding the acquittal of the Wing Commander. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and 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 S. Verma. It was alleged that Garje misbehaved with Verma’s wife. Verma reported the incident to the respondent, Wing Commander M.S. Mander, who in turn reported it to the station commander. The station commander instructed Mander to inquire into the matter. Mander then asked Verma to ensure Garje’s presence for questioning.

On March 6, 1998, as Garje was giving evasive answers, Mander ordered that Garje be confined to the Guards’ room. Garje was then taken in a gypsy vehicle driven by Mander, with Flight Lieutenant A.N. Menon, Flight Lieutenant S. Verma, and Flying Officer I.S. Shahab also present. While being transported, Garje jumped out of the vehicle and fell into a ditch, sustaining serious injuries. He died in the hospital on March 7, 1998.

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 rigorous imprisonment and cashiering, which was later reduced to two years imprisonment in civil prison, but the cashiering was upheld. The co-accused had their sentences remitted.

The respondent challenged his conviction by filing a writ petition. This petition was later transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the respondent’s petition on May 14, 2010, setting aside his conviction and granting consequential reliefs, except back wages. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (AFA). The primary charges against the respondent were under:

• Section 302, read with Section 149 of the IPC: This section pertains to murder committed by a group of people with a common intention.
  “302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
  “149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.—If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”
• Section 302 of IPC: This section pertains to the punishment for murder.
  “302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 304 Part II, read with Section 149 of 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 or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  “304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
• Section 325, read with Section 149 of IPC: This section relates to voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
  “325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 342, read with Section 149 of IPC: This section pertains to wrongful confinement.
  “342. Punishment for wrongful confinement.—Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
• Sections 45, 65, and 71 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (AFA): These sections relate to unbecoming conduct, acts prejudicial to good order, and committing civil offences under the AFA.

Arguments

Submissions by the Appellants (Union of India):

• The senior counsel for the appellants argued that the Armed Forces Tribunal only discussed the first two charges (Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 302 of IPC) and did not consider the other three charges held as proved against the respondent.
• They relied on the testimonies of PWs 4 to 9, 27, 10, 12, 13, and 16, as well as medical evidence and the testimonies of PWs 20, 33, 34, and 35.
• PWs 4 to 10 and 12 identified the respondent. PW-8 testified that he saw the respondent walking in the garden with a stick and entering the Air Crew Rest Room (ACRR). He heard noises after the shutter was pulled down.
• PW-9 saw the respondent entering ACRR and then saw a person running from ACRR towards the airport. He heard shouts of “pakdo” and saw the accused catching the person and taking him towards the gypsy.
• PW-7 saw the respondent starting the gypsy vehicle and accused Nos. 3 and 4 catching a man in civilian clothes. Other witnesses stated that the respondent was driving the gypsy on a parallel taxi track.
• The respondent admitted that he had picked up the deceased and carried him in a gypsy vehicle to confine him to a Guards’ room. He drove the gypsy to the parallel taxi track as suggested by accused No.3. The deceased jumped from the gypsy and ran towards the kutcha road, falling into a ditch.
• The appellants submitted 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.

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

• The counsel for the respondent argued that the prosecution did not claim that the deceased was pushed out of the gypsy vehicle.
• None of the witnesses stated that the respondent used any weapon or stick.
• No witness alleged that the deceased was assaulted by the respondent or any other accused.
• The injuries sustained by the deceased clearly show that they were caused due to a fall in a concrete ditch. There were no injury marks on the scalp, such as lacerations or deep cuts.
• The Tribunal found that there was no evidence against the respondent, and therefore, even the other three charges cannot be sustained.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal was correct in setting aside the conviction of the respondent, Wing Commander M.S. Mander.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any case laws or books in its judgment. However, it considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Pertains to murder committed by a group of people with a common intention.
• Section 302 of IPC: Pertains to the punishment for murder.
• Section 304 Part II, read with Section 149 of IPC: Deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Section 325, read with Section 149 of IPC: Relates to voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
• Section 342, read with Section 149 of IPC: Pertains to wrongful confinement.
• Sections 45, 65, and 71 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (AFA): Relate to unbecoming conduct, acts prejudicial to good order, and committing civil offences under the AFA.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court considered the relevant legal provisions in the context of the case.

• Section 302, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The Court found no evidence to support the application of this provision, as there was no evidence of murder or common intention to commit murder.
• Section 302 of IPC: The Court found no evidence to support the application of this provision, as there was no evidence of murder.
• Section 304 Part II, read with Section 149 of IPC: The Court found no evidence to support the application of this provision, as there was no evidence of culpable homicide.
• Section 325, read with Section 149 of IPC: The Court found no evidence to support the application of this provision, as there was no evidence of grievous hurt caused by the respondent.
• Section 342, read with Section 149 of IPC: The Court found that while there was an initial intention to confine the deceased, he was not actually confined, and therefore, this provision did not apply.
• Sections 45, 65, and 71 of the Air Force Act, 1950 (AFA): The Court held that since the IPC offences were not established, the respondent could not be punished under these sections of the AFA.

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 deceased. The court emphasized that the injuries sustained by the deceased were due to a fall and not due to any assault by the respondent or other accused. The Court also noted that the respondent’s initial intention to confine the deceased did not result in actual confinement.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision to acquit Wing Commander M.S. Mander. The Court found that there was no direct evidence to link the respondent to the death of the deceased. The Court noted that the deceased’s injuries were consistent with a fall into a ditch and not due to any assault by the respondent or other accused. The Court also emphasized that the respondent’s initial intention to confine the deceased did not result in actual confinement.

The Court stated, “After considering the evidence of all the relevant prosecution witnesses, we find that there is absolutely no evidence of the respondent or any other accused assaulting the deceased.”

The Court further added, “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.”

The Court also noted, “This statement of the respondent does not contain any admission on the part of the respondent that he had wrongfully confined the deceased. Initially, the respondent may have directed that the deceased be confined to the Guards’ room. But actually, he was not confined in the Guards’ room.”

The Court concluded that the Tribunal’s findings were plausible and based on a thorough examination of the evidence. The Court also stated that an order of acquittal cannot be interfered with simply because another view can be taken based on the same evidence.

Key Takeaways

• Lack of direct evidence is crucial in criminal cases. Mere suspicion or initial intent is not sufficient for conviction.
• Medical evidence plays a vital role in determining the cause of death and injuries.
• An order of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence and cannot be easily overturned unless there is a clear error in the judgment.
• The court will not interfere with the findings of the lower court unless the findings are perverse.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of acquittal by the Armed Forces Tribunal was upheld.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained without direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. The Supreme Court reiterated that an order of acquittal further enhances the presumption of innocence and cannot be interfered with unless the findings of the lower court are perverse. This case reinforces the principle that mere suspicion or initial intent is not sufficient for conviction in a criminal case. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Wing Commander M.S. Mander, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent. The Court found no direct evidence to link the respondent to the death of the deceased, emphasizing that the injuries were caused by a fall and not by any assault. The judgment underscores the importance of direct evidence in criminal cases and reinforces the principle that an order of acquittal cannot be easily overturned.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Culpable Homicide
• Wrongful Confinement
• Evidence Law
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 304, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 342, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Air Force Act, 1950

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the case of Union of India vs. M.S. Mander?

A: The main issue was whether Wing Commander M.S. Mander could be held responsible for the death of a subordinate who died after jumping from a vehicle while being taken for questioning.

Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?

A: The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of Wing Commander M.S. Mander, finding no direct evidence to link him to the death of the subordinate.

Q: What was the cause of death of the subordinate?

A: The subordinate died due to injuries sustained from a fall into a ditch after jumping out of a vehicle.

Q: Did the Supreme Court find any evidence of assault by the Wing Commander?

A: No, the Supreme Court found no evidence that the Wing Commander or any other accused assaulted the deceased.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: The judgment emphasizes the importance of direct evidence in criminal cases and reinforces the principle that an order of acquittal cannot be easily overturned unless there is a clear error in the judgment.