2022 Supreme(SC) 272

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Major R. Metri No. 08585N - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2196 of 2017, 537-538 of 2018
Decided on : 04-04-2022

IMPORTANT POINT
(1) If view taken by Armed Forces Tribunal is found to be a plausible one, it will not be permissible for this Court to interfere with same only because this court finds other view to be more probable/plausible.
(2) Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence – Unless such a confession is found to be voluntary, trustworthy and reliable, conviction solely on the basis of same, without corroboration, would not be justified.

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 read with Section 63 of Army Act, 1950 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – General Court Martial – Conviction and sentence – AFT is entitled to reappreciate evidence to find out if any findings of court martial are legally not sustainable due to any reason; or that finding involves wrong decision on a question of law; or there was a material irregularity in course of trial resulting in miscarriage of justice – GCM has passed its conviction basically on confessional statement made by respondent-officer – Question, as to whether a person was compelled to make a statement or not, is a question of fact in each case to be determined by Court on weighing facts and circumstances disclosed in evidence before it – AFT has come to a conclusion that from circumstances as emerged, it cannot be said that confessional statement was voluntary – If view taken by AFT is found to be a plausible one, it will not be permissible for this Court to interfere with same only because this court finds other view to be more probable/plausible – Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence – Unless such a confession is found to be voluntary, trustworthy and reliable, conviction solely on the basis of same, without corroboration, would not be justified – In present case, there is no corroboration at all – A single officer like Respondent-officer cannot declare a candidate medically fit, if he is otherwise not – No error could be found with findings of AFT that respondent-officer deserves to be acquitted of offence punishable under Section 7 of P.C. Act – Impugned judgment and order passed by AFT, convicting appellant for offence punishable under Section 63 of Army Act and sentencing him to forfeiture of seniority of rank and of severe reprimand quashed and set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Appellant directed to be reinstated forthwith with continuity of service – However, he will not be entitled for back-wages for period during which he was out of employment. (Paras 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 45, 46, 47, 49 and 54)

Facts of the case:

Criminal Appeal No.2196 of 2017 is filed by the Union of India and others, challenging that part of the judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2017, of AFT, vide which AFT, while setting aside the order of conviction, under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 (and the sentence of cashiering from service and suffering of rigorous imprisonment for one year, dated 28th April, 2013 passed by General Court Martial (GCM), has convicted the respondent-Major R. Metri (appellant in connected appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos.537538 of 2018) under Section 63 of the Army Act, and in turn, sentenced him to punishment of forfeiture of seniority of rank of Major and of severe reprimand. AFT has also directed that respondent-officer be reinstated in service, with no pay and allowance for the period he remained out of service, but, without any service break. Criminal Appeal Nos. 537538 of 2018 have been filed by respondent-officer, aggrieved by that part of the said judgment and order of AFT, convicting him for offence punishable under Section 63 of the Army Act and sentencing him to punishment of forfeiture of seniority of rank and of severe reprimand.

Findings of Court:

All the three witnesses have admitted that they had no knowledge if any candidate, declared fit by the respondent-officer, was subsequently found to have been medically unfit. All the three witnesses have also admitted that there was no material to establish that the amount, which was deposited in account of the respondent-officer and his father-in-law was an amount received as illegal gratification.

Result : Appeals Partly allowed.