LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the sentence of life imprisonment for a soldier convicted of murder under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 read with Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code should be reduced considering the circumstances of the case and the period of imprisonment already served.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal (Army Law)
Case Name: Ex-Gunner Virender Prasad vs. Union of India & Anr.
Judgment Date: 18 March 2020
Date of the Judgment: 18 March 2020
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2035 OF 2012
Judges: S.A. Bobde (Chief Justice of India), B.R. Gavai J., Surya Kant J.
Can a soldier, convicted of murder, have their life sentence reduced based on their conduct, the circumstances of the crime, and the time already served? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving an army personnel who shot a fellow soldier. The court considered whether the sentence imposed by the Court Martial and affirmed by the Armed Forces Tribunal was proportionate to the offense and the circumstances.
The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the conviction of an army personnel for murder under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, read with Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code, and considered whether the life sentence should be reduced. The bench consisted of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice Surya Kant. The judgment was authored by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde.
Case Background
The appellant, a member of the Signals Corps, was posted at Peer Badeshwar Radar Post. On June 30, 2003, he shot and killed a fellow soldier, Gunner Sushil Kumar, while the latter was sleeping. The appellant claimed he acted under the delusion of a militant attack and had no control over his senses. He fired a full magazine of ammunition, resulting in the death of the victim. Following the incident, the appellant surrendered to his seniors and confessed his actions.
Initially, the police registered a case and submitted a challan to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri. However, at the request of the Army Authorities, the case was transferred to them for trial. The appellant was charged under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, for committing a civil offense of murder, punishable under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code. A Court Martial was conducted, and the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment and dismissal from service.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 01.10.2002 | Appellant posted to HQ & Radar Battery of 20 Surveillance and target acquisition regiment. |
| 12.05.2003 | Appellant reported to Peer Badeshwar Radar Post. |
| 30.06.2003 | Appellant shot and killed Gunner Sushil Kumar. |
| 21.08.2004 | Court Martial found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. |
| 22.05.2007 | The petition filed by the appellant under Sections 164(2) and 165 of the Army Act was dismissed by the Union of India. |
| 6.1.2020 | Appellant has served 16 years and 6 months of sentence. |
| 18.03.2020 | Supreme Court directs the release of the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant challenged the Court Martial’s decision before the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of Army Staff, which was dismissed on 22.05.2007. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) upon its formation. The AFT also dismissed the appeal, upholding the Court Martial’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, which states:
“Any person subject to this Act who at any place commits any civil offence shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and, if charged therewith under this section, shall be liable to be tried by a Court-martial, and, on conviction, be punishable as follows, that is to say,– (a) if the offence is one which would be punishable under any law in force in India with death, he shall be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and (b) in any other case, he shall be liable to suffer any punishment assigned for the offence by the aforesaid law, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.”
The appellant was charged under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, for committing a civil offense of murder, which is punishable under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code. The Ranbir Penal Code is the penal code applicable in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, where the incident occurred. The Supreme Court also considered Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which mandates that a person sentenced to life imprisonment must serve at least 14 years before being considered for release.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant contended that he shot the deceased in a state of delusion, believing it to be a militant attack. He claimed he had no control over his senses during the incident.
- The appellant highlighted his conduct after the incident, immediately surrendering to his seniors and confessing his actions.
- The appellant emphasized his excellent behavior in jail, as certified by the Superintendent of the District Jail, Dehradun.
- The appellant argued that he had already served a substantial period of imprisonment, exceeding 14 years, making him eligible for release.
Union of India’s Arguments:
- The Union of India argued that the appellant was rightly convicted by the Court Martial and the AFT for the offense of murder under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, read with Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
- The Union of India relied on the judgment in Union of India and others vs. Sadha Singh [(1999) 8 SCC 375], which held that Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is applicable to cases tried under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, meaning that a person sentenced to life imprisonment must serve at least 14 years.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Delusion |
|
| Appellant’s Conduct |
|
| Appellant’s Sentence |
|
| Union of India’s Conviction |
|
| Union of India’s Sentence |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue before the court was:
- Whether the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant for the offense of murder under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, read with Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code, should be reduced, considering the circumstances of the case and the period of imprisonment already served.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the life sentence should be reduced? | The Supreme Court held that the sentence already served by the appellant was disproportionate to the offense and directed his release. The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the appellant’s delusion, his conduct after the incident, and his good behavior in jail. The court also noted that the appellant had served more than 14 years, making the bar of Section 433A of the CrPC inapplicable. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
- Santa Singh vs. The State of Punjab [(1976) 4 SCC 190] – The Supreme Court referred to this case to highlight the factors that should be considered while deciding an appropriate sentence. These factors include the nature of the offense, the circumstances (extenuating or aggravating), the offender’s prior criminal record, age, employment record, background, emotional and mental condition, prospects for rehabilitation, and the possibility of deterrence.
- Gopal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand [(2013) 7 SCC 545] – This case was cited to show that the principles laid down in Santa Singh (supra) have been consistently followed by the Supreme Court.
- Union of India and others vs. Sadha Singh [(1999) 8 SCC 375] – The Supreme Court acknowledged this case, which held that Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applies to cases tried under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, requiring a minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment for life sentences.
Legal Provisions:
- Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950: This section deals with civil offences committed by army personnel and their trial by Court-martial. It states that any person subject to the Army Act who commits a civil offense is deemed guilty of an offense under the Act and can be tried by a Court-martial.
- Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code: This section defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section stipulates that a person sentenced to life imprisonment must serve a minimum of 14 years before being eligible for release.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Santa Singh vs. The State of Punjab [(1976) 4 SCC 190] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – The Court relied on this case to outline the factors to be considered while determining an appropriate sentence. |
| Gopal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand [(2013) 7 SCC 545] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – The Court cited this case to show that the principles of sentencing from Santa Singh have been consistently followed. |
| Union of India and others vs. Sadha Singh [(1999) 8 SCC 375] | Supreme Court of India | Acknowledged – The Court acknowledged that Section 433A of CrPC applies to cases under Section 69 of the Army Act, mandating a minimum of 14 years of imprisonment. |
| Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 | Parliament of India | Explained – The Court explained the provision as to how it deals with civil offences committed by army personnel and their trial by Court-martial. |
| Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code | Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir | Explained – The Court explained the provision as to how it defines the punishment for murder. |
| Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Parliament of India | Explained – The Court explained the provision as to how it stipulates that a person sentenced to life imprisonment must serve a minimum of 14 years before being eligible for release. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Delusion | The Court considered the appellant’s claim of acting under a delusion of a militant attack as a mitigating factor. |
| Appellant’s Conduct | The Court took into account the appellant’s conduct of surrendering immediately and confessing his actions, and his excellent behavior in jail. |
| Appellant’s Sentence | The Court found that the appellant had served more than 14 years of imprisonment, making the bar of Section 433A of CrPC inapplicable, and deemed the sentence disproportionate to the offense. |
| Union of India’s Conviction | The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant by the Court Martial and AFT. |
| Union of India’s Sentence | The Court acknowledged the applicability of Section 433A of CrPC but found that the appellant had already served more than the required minimum period. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Santa Singh vs. The State of Punjab [(1976) 4 SCC 190]* and Gopal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand [(2013) 7 SCC 545]*, which emphasize the need to consider various factors while determining an appropriate sentence.
- The Supreme Court acknowledged the ruling in Union of India and others vs. Sadha Singh [(1999) 8 SCC 375]* regarding the applicability of Section 433A of the CrPC but distinguished the present case by noting that the appellant had already served more than 14 years.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the sentence was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Mitigating Circumstances: The court considered the appellant’s claim of acting under a delusion of a militant attack as a significant mitigating factor.
- Post-Incident Conduct: The appellant’s immediate surrender, confession, and excellent behavior in jail were viewed positively by the court.
- Time Served: The court noted that the appellant had already served 16 years and 6 months, which was more than the 14 years required under Section 433A of the CrPC.
- Proportionality of Sentence: The court concluded that the sentence already served was disproportionate to the offense, given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
| Sentiment Analysis | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Mitigating Circumstances | 30% |
| Post-Incident Conduct | 25% |
| Time Served | 30% |
| Proportionality of Sentence | 15% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual considerations (the appellant’s mental state and conduct) and legal principles (the proportionality of the sentence and the applicability of Section 433A of the CrPC).
Appellant convicted of murder under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 read with Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code
Court considers mitigating circumstances: Appellant’s claim of delusion, immediate surrender, confession, and good behavior in jail.
Court notes that appellant has served more than 14 years, making Section 433A of CrPC inapplicable.
Court concludes that the sentence served is disproportionate to the offense.
Supreme Court directs the release of the appellant.
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the facts, the legal framework, and the principles of justice. The court emphasized that while the conviction was upheld, the sentence needed to be proportionate to the circumstances of the case. The court stated, “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view, that the sentence already served by the appellant is much more than proportionate to the offence proved against him.” The court also noted, “The conduct and behaviour of the appellant in the jail, as could be seen from the Certificate issued by the Superintendent, District Jail, Dehradun, has been excellent.” Further, the court observed, “As such, he has served the sentence for a period of more than 14 years and as such, the bar of Section 433A Cr.P.C. would also not be applicable.”
Key Takeaways
- Sentences must be proportionate to the offense, considering all circumstances.
- Good conduct and mitigating factors can influence sentencing decisions.
- Section 433A of the CrPC mandates a minimum of 14 years of imprisonment for life sentences, but this is not an absolute bar to release.
- The Supreme Court can intervene to reduce sentences if they are deemed disproportionate.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith from custody.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that while Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mandates a minimum of 14 years of imprisonment for life sentences, the Supreme Court can reduce a sentence if it is found to be disproportionate to the offense, considering the specific circumstances of the case, the conduct of the accused, and the time already served. This case clarifies that the 14-year minimum is not an absolute bar to release and that the court has the discretion to consider mitigating factors and proportionality in sentencing.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ex-Gunner Virender Prasad vs. Union of India & Anr. demonstrates the court’s commitment to ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the offense and the unique circumstances of each case. While upholding the conviction, the court reduced the life sentence of the appellant, directing his immediate release, based on his conduct, the mitigating circumstances of the crime, and the time he had already served. This judgment reinforces the principle that justice must be tempered with mercy and that the courts have a duty to ensure that sentences are not unduly harsh.
Category
Parent Category: Army Act, 1950
Child Category: Section 69, Army Act, 1950
Parent Category: Ranbir Penal Code
Child Category: Section 302, Ranbir Penal Code
Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child Category: Section 433A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Sentencing
Child Category: Proportionality of Sentence
FAQ
Q: What was the case about?
A: The case involved an army personnel, Virender Prasad, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court reviewed his sentence to determine if it was proportionate to the offense.
Q: What is Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950?
A: Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950, deals with civil offenses committed by army personnel. It allows for the trial of such offenses by a Court-martial.
Q: What is Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code?
A: Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code defines the punishment for murder.
Q: What is Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
A: Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stipulates that a person sentenced to life imprisonment must serve a minimum of 14 years before being considered for release.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence, directing the immediate release of the appellant. The court found that the sentence was disproportionate to the offense, considering the circumstances of the case and the time already served.
Q: What factors did the Supreme Court consider?
A: The Supreme Court considered the appellant’s claim of acting under a delusion, his conduct after the incident, his good behavior in jail, and the fact that he had already served more than 14 years of imprisonment.
Q: What does this case mean for other similar cases?
A: This case highlights that sentences must be proportionate to the offense and that courts can consider mitigating factors and the time served when deciding on a sentence. It also clarifies that the 14-year minimum under Section 433A of CrPC is not an absolute bar to release.