Supreme Court Upholds Armed Forces Tribunal Decision: Dismissal of Sepoy Pravat Kumar Behuria Set Aside in Army Assault Case (06 November 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 06 November 2019
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1627 of 2019 (@ Diary No. 1052 of 2018)
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a court martial’s decision be overturned if proper procedure isn’t followed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case involving a Sepoy accused of assaulting a superior officer. The court examined whether the Armed Forces Tribunal was correct in setting aside the Sepoy’s dismissal, focusing on procedural lapses and inconsistencies in evidence. The bench consisted of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, who delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

On 02 February 2002, Sepoy Pravat Kumar Behuria (the Respondent) joined the Indian Army. On 01 June 2011, he was posted at Jamnagar. The next day, 02 June 2011, at approximately 07:45 hrs, the Respondent assaulted Subedar/Master Technical (Communication) Satyendra Singh Yadav with a Talwar (grass cutting tool). The attack occurred without any provocation, initially hitting the Subedar on the head from behind and then on the forehead. Naib Subedar A.P. Singh intervened to stop a third blow. Subedar Yadav was immediately taken to Gokul Hospital, Jamnagar, where he underwent surgery for a fractured skull, internal bleeding, and blood clotting in the brain.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

A Court of Inquiry was convened on 03 June 2011, by Colonel Sanjay Khanna to investigate the assault. The Court of Inquiry examined nine witnesses. The Respondent declined to cross-examine the witnesses and did not make any statement in his defence. The Court of Inquiry recommended action against the Respondent. Subsequently, Lt. Col. Amarvir Singh initiated proceedings for recording the summary of evidence, examining twelve witnesses between 10 June 2011 and 15 June 2011. The Respondent allegedly refused to cross-examine the witnesses but gave a statement admitting to the assault. On 20 October 2011, additional summary of evidence was recorded, with two additional witnesses and re-examination of two previous witnesses. The prosecution alleges that the Respondent refused to cross-examine these witnesses as well. The Summary Court Martial on 23 July 2012, found the Respondent guilty and ordered his dismissal from service. The Respondent then challenged this order before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation and application of the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954. Specifically, the Supreme Court considered the following:

• Rule 23(2) of the Army Rules, 1954: This rule pertains to recording the statement of the accused during the summary of evidence.
• Rules 115 and 116 of the Army Rules, 1954: These rules deal with recording the plea of guilt of a delinquent.
• Rules 179 and 180 of the Army Rules, 1954: These rules outline the procedure for conducting a court martial, ensuring that the accused has the opportunity to defend themselves, including cross-examination of witnesses.
• Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on whether the procedures prescribed under the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 were followed, and whether the Respondent was given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The Court also examined if the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the charge under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Arguments

The Respondent argued before the Armed Forces Tribunal that:

• He was kept in close arrest from 02 June 2011 to 05 October 2011 without the permission of the Chief of the Army Staff.
• He was not given an opportunity to participate in the Court of Inquiry or during the recording of summary of evidence.
• The Summary Court Martial was conducted hastily, completing in 45 minutes.
• The oral evidence was inconsistent with the medical evidence. Specifically, there was no incised wound on the victim’s head, despite the use of a sharp-edged weapon.
• There was non-compliance of the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954.

The Appellants (Union of India) contended that:

• The Respondent was given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during the Court of Inquiry and the recording of the summary of evidence.
• The summary of evidence was recorded in the presence of the Respondent.
• The Summary Court Martial was conducted as per procedure.
• The Respondent’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The innovativeness of the Respondent’s argument lies in highlighting the procedural lapses and inconsistencies in evidence, which are crucial in military justice. The Respondent effectively argued that the haste and lack of due process in the proceedings undermined the fairness of the trial.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order of dismissal of the Respondent.
2. Whether the procedures prescribed under the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 were followed during the Court of Inquiry, recording of summary of evidence, and the Summary Court Martial.
3. Whether the Respondent was given a fair opportunity to defend himself, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
4. Whether there was an irreconcilable inconsistency between the medical evidence and the oral testimonies of the witnesses.
5. Whether the prosecution proved the charge against the Respondent beyond reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Supreme Court also considered the following provisions:

• Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Rule 23(2) of the Army Rules, 1954: This rule pertains to recording the statement of the accused during the summary of evidence.
• Rules 115 and 116 of the Army Rules, 1954: These rules deal with recording the plea of guilt of a delinquent.
• Rules 179 and 180 of the Army Rules, 1954: These rules outline the procedure for conducting a court martial, ensuring that the accused has the opportunity to defend themselves, including cross-examination of witnesses.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, dismissing the appeal filed by the Union of India. The Court found that the Tribunal’s decision was well-reasoned and based on a thorough examination of the evidence and procedure.

The Court also considered the following authorities:

• Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2008] 10 SCC 450: The Court applied the principles laid down in this case, which state that judgments of acquittal should not be disturbed unless there are substantial or compelling reasons. The Court found that the Tribunal’s judgment was not erroneous and did not result in a grave miscarriage of justice.

The Court observed that the signatures of the Respondent were taken in advance on blank papers during the recording of the summary of evidence and the Court of Inquiry. The Court noted that the signatures of the Respondent were consistently found at the right-hand side at the bottom of each page, even when the depositions of witnesses ended in the middle of the page. This indicated that the signatures were taken before the depositions were recorded.

The Court emphasized that the Respondent was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which is a violation of Rules 179 and 180 of the Army Rules, 1954. The Court also noted that the Summary Court Martial was conducted in a hasty manner, completing in just 45 minutes.

The Court concluded that while a view that the Respondent is guilty is possible on a scrutiny of the oral evidence, the relevant factors taken into account by the Tribunal present another probable view. It is settled law that if two views can be reached, the one that leads to acquittal has to be preferred to the other, which would end in conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the procedural irregularities and inconsistencies in evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of following due process, especially in cases involving military personnel. The fact that the Respondent was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself and that the evidence was not consistent led the Court to uphold the Tribunal’s decision. The Court’s sentiment was that the principles of natural justice and fair trial should be upheld, even in military proceedings.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Supreme Court considered the possibility that the Respondent was guilty based on the oral evidence, but it ultimately sided with the view that favored acquittal. This was due to the procedural violations and inconsistencies in evidence. The Court emphasized that when two views are possible, the one leading to acquittal should be preferred.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“It is clear from the record that Respondent was not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses whose statements were recorded in the summary of evidence.”

“The proceedings of Court of Inquiry, recording of summary of evidence and the Summary Court Martial have been conducted without following the procedure prescribed by the Act and the Rules.”

“It is settled law that if two views can be reached, the one that leads to acquittal has to be preferred to the other, which would end in conviction.”

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Due Process: Military courts must adhere strictly to the procedures outlined in the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954, ensuring fair trials.
• Right to Cross-Examination: The accused must be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense.
• Consistency of Evidence: Inconsistencies between medical and oral evidence can undermine the prosecution’s case.
• Preference for Acquittal: If two views are possible, the one that leads to acquittal should be preferred over conviction.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that military courts must strictly adhere to procedural requirements to ensure a fair trial. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that when two views are possible, the one favoring acquittal should be preferred, especially when there are procedural lapses and inconsistencies in evidence. This judgment reinforces the importance of due process and natural justice in military proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of following due process in military proceedings. The Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision to set aside the dismissal of Sepoy Pravat Kumar Behuria due to procedural irregularities, inconsistencies in evidence, and the denial of a fair opportunity to defend himself. This judgment reinforces the principle that fundamental rights and fair trial principles apply even in military justice.