NDLI: Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar Etc.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	s.15 Armed Forces Tribunal Act Power of the Tribunal 2007
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (55 of 2007)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	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-inCommand 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 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 the Armed Forces Tribunal – Plea of the accused that since the prosecution did not put the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the accused u/r.58, therefore, the conviction was rightly set aside by the Tribunal– Held: Though, the incriminating circumstance should have been put to the accused in terms of r.58 which is akin to s.313 of CrPC but, the detailed explanation given by the accused rules out any prejudice caused to them on account of absence of specific incriminating circumstances put to them – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1030
Petitioner	Union Of India & Ors.
Respondent	Sandeep Kumar Etc.
SCR	[2019] 12 S.C.R. 415
Judgement Date	2019-09-13
Case Number	1388

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr.

Mohammed Ansari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Suchet Singh Yadav & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Ex. Lac Yogesh Pathania Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Lt. Col. Vijaynath Jha Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Cdr. Ravindra V. Desai

Union of India & Ors. Vs. P. S. Gill

Union of India Vs. R. Bhusal

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar Etc.

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr.

Mohammed Ansari Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Suchet Singh Yadav & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Ex. Lac Yogesh Pathania Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Lt. Col. Vijaynath Jha Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Cdr. Ravindra V. Desai

Union of India & Ors. Vs. P. S. Gill

Union of India Vs. R. Bhusal

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar Etc.