SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok)
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT, JJ.
The State of Sikkim - Appellant
Versus
Jasbir Singh & Anr. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2022
Decided on : 01-02-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Army Act, 1960 – Sections 69, 70, 125 and 126 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 75 – Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules,1978 – Rules 3, 4 and 5 – Murder by Serviceman – Offence in present case does not fall in the category of those offences which are triable exclusively by a court-martial or those offences which cannot be tried by a court-martial – Offence with which respondent-accused is charged falls in category where there is a concurrent jurisdiction between court-martial and ordinary criminal court – There is no inherent lack of jurisdiction in ordinary criminal court to conduct a trial in accordance with procedure envisaged in Cr.P.C. – When a provision of a statute is made subject to another provision by Legislature, this evinces an intent that where latter provision is attracted, former would give way – Where conditions requisite for application of Section 70 exist, Section 69 would give way to Section 70 – When provisions of Section 70 apply, a person who is subject to Army Act is not deemed to be guilty of an offence under the Act if ingredients of that provision are fulfilled – In present case, conditions requisite for application under Section 70 do not stand attracted for reason that offence in present case was committed against a person who was subject to military law and in any event, offence was committed by respondent while on active service in Sikkim – Since Section 70 has no application, respondent who is alleged to have committed a ‘civil offence’ in India would be subject to provisions of Army Act as provided by Section 69 – Entire sequence of events both before and after completion of investigation provides a clear indicator that Commanding Officer took a conscious decision that investigation and trial should be conducted in accordance with provisions of Cr.P.C. – Consequence of decision of High Court is to foist an obligation on Army Authorities to hold a court-martial despite a clear and unequivocal submission to jurisdiction of Court of Sessions – Impugned judgment of Single Judge of High Court set aside – Respondent-accused shall be transferred from military custody to civil custody to face trial. (Paras 42, 43, 44, 45, 51 and 52)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Sikkim. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the High Court has upheld the order of the Sessions Judge, Special Division-II, Sikkim, at Gangtok, directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim to furnish a written notice to Commanding Officer of the unit of the respondent-accused and deliver him for trial by a court-martial.
Findings of Court:
High Court was in error in affirming, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the decision of the Sessions Judge that court-martial alone would have jurisdiction. Both on law and in fact, the position is to the contrary.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
| A. Facts ........................................................................................................................ 2 |
| B. Submissions ............................................................................................................ 8 |
| C. Analysis ................................................................................................................. 14 |
| D. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 42 |
A. Facts
1. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Sikkim. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19731[“CrPC”], the High Court has upheld the order of the Sessions Judge, Special Division-II, Sikkim, at Gangtok, directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim to furnish a written notice to the Commanding Officer of the unit of the respondent-accused and deliver him for trial by a court-martial.
2. On 14 December 2014, at about 19:40 hours, Lance Naik Rajesh Kumar of 17 Mountain Division of the Indian Army lodged a First Information Report2[FIR No. 409/2014] before the Station House Officer at the Sadar Police Station in Gangtok stating inter alia that on the relevant date at around 6.00 p.m., when he returned to his barracks, he struck up a conversation with two riflemen for a short while. After that, as he was freshening up, between 6.30 p.m. and 6.45 p.m. he heard sounds of gunshots inside the barracks. He immediately rushed to the barracks and witnessed the respondent-accused, Lance Naik Jasbir Singh, opening fire on a rifleman, Balbir Singh, with an INSAS Rifle. The informant pulled the respondent-accused out of the barracks along with the rifle and simultaneously raised an alarm for help, on which Signalmen Ujjal Sinha and C.H. Anil arrived at the spot. The accused, in the meanwhile, escaped from the clutches of the informant. The informant then immediately rang up the medical room and returned to check on the injured rifleman, by which time he suspected that the he was already dead. FIR No. 409 of 2014 was registered on 14 December 2014 at the Sadar Police Station, Gangtok.
3. On 15 December 2014, the custody of the accused was handed over by the competent military authority to the Investigating Officer3[“IO”] and an arrest/ court surrender memo was issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police at the Sardar Police Station. While conducting the investigation, the IO issued a requisition to the Commanding Officer of the 17 Mountain Division Pro Unit, informing him that an FIR under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 18604[“IPC”] had been registered against the respondent-accused. The IO requested certain documents for the purpose of investigation, namely:
(ii) Duty Deployment Chart of Sunday, 14 December 2014;
(iii) Weapon Issue Register of Sunday, 14 December 2014; and
(iv) Records of any previous offence.
4. In response to the above communication, Colonel RR Nair, the Commanding Officer5[“CO”] of the 17 Mountain Division Pro Unit furnished the following documents by his letter dated 27 December 2014:
(ii) CTC of Pilot duty detailment extract as on 14 December 2014;
(iii) CTC of Weapon Issue Register, where he informed the IO that the respondent-accused had withdrawn the weapon for piloting duty on 14 December 2014. After completion of the duty however, while committing the offence, the respondent had unauthorizedly accessed the weapon; and
(iv) Record of previous offences.
A copy of this communication was forwarded by the CO to the Headquarters of the 17 Mountain Division Pro Unit.
5. On 12 Janu
Joginder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Som Datt Datta v. Union of India and others
Ram Sarup v. Union of India and another
Ram Sarup v. Union of India and another
Som Datt Datta v. Union of India
Joginder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Major EG Barsay v. State of Bombay
Delhi Special Police Establishment, New Delhi v. Lt. Col. SK Loraiya
Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association and Another v. Union of India
Balbir Singh and Another v. State of Punjab
Additional Director General, Army Headquarters v. Central Bureau of Investigation
When a provision of a statute is made subject to another provision by Legislature, this evinces an intent that where latter provision is attracted, former would give way.
Civil offences under the Army Act may be concurrently tried by civil courts and court-martials; proper authority notification is essential for jurisdictional clarity.
The court affirmed that custody of accused military personnel remains with Court Martial until a charge sheet is filed, emphasizing adherence to statutory protocols in handling sexual offences.
The learned Magistrate's failure to comply with mandatory rules resulted in lack of jurisdiction for trial proceedings.
A valid conviction in a military trial, even if unconfirmed, prohibits retrial under the Air Force Act.
Mandatory procedural compliance in military trials is essential for ensuring fair trial rights; failure to adhere renders proceedings invalid.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.