Army Court-Martial and Life Sentence: Supreme Court Orders Release of Ex-Gunner Virender Prasad

The case of Ex-Gunner Virender Prasad vs. Union of India & Anr. revolves around a tragic incident in which a soldier, in a state of delusion, fired upon a fellow soldier while on duty in a high-risk area in Kashmir. The appellant, Virender Prasad, was convicted by a Summary General Court Martial for murder under Section 69 of the Army Act and sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal was rejected by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the Delhi High Court before being heard by the Supreme Court.

Background of the Case

Virender Prasad was enrolled in the Indian Army’s Signals Corps and posted at the Peer Badeshwar Radar Post in Kashmir. On June 30, 2003, he fatally shot Gunner Sushil Kumar while the latter was sleeping. The appellant claimed that he had fired his rifle under the mistaken belief that a militant attack was underway.

Following the incident, Prasad immediately surrendered to his senior officers and confessed to the shooting. The military police registered a case, and after an investigation, he was charged under Section 69 of the Army Act for committing a civil offense of murder, punishable under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code.

Trial and Court Martial

A Summary General Court Martial was conducted, during which 15 witnesses, including a psychiatrist, were examined. The Court Martial found Prasad guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment, in addition to dismissing him from service. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, through his counsel Mr. B.K. Pal, challenged the conviction and sentence on the following grounds:

• He had no prior intent to commit murder and acted in a state of mental confusion.
• The shooting was an accident that occurred due to a delusion of a terrorist attack.
• He immediately surrendered and confessed, demonstrating no criminal intent.
• His behavior in jail had been exemplary, and he had already served over 16 years in prison.
• Given the circumstances, his case deserved leniency.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, argued that:

• The appellant had fired an entire magazine of rifle ammunition, making the act intentional.
• The trial and conviction followed due process under the Army Act.
• The appellant’s mental confusion was not supported by conclusive medical evidence.
• Given the seriousness of the offense, the sentence should not be interfered with.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant’s sentence was proportionate to the offense. The Court took into account multiple factors, including the circumstances of the crime, the appellant’s conduct before and after the incident, and the time already served in prison.

The Court referred to the judgment in Santa Singh vs. State of Punjab (1976), which outlined the need for a balanced approach in sentencing, considering factors such as:

• The nature of the offense and extenuating circumstances.
• The accused’s age, background, and mental condition.
• The possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The Court also cited Union of India vs. Sadha Singh (1999), which held that Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code applies to those sentenced under the Army Act, meaning they must serve at least 14 years of imprisonment before being eligible for remission.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence. The key findings were:

• The appellant was in a highly stressful environment in Kashmir, where security personnel frequently faced life-threatening situations.
• He immediately surrendered, indicating remorse and lack of premeditation.
• His conduct in jail had been excellent, as certified by the Superintendent of District Jail, Dehradun.
• He had already served over 16 years in prison (including remission, over 20 years).
• Since he had served more than the mandatory 14-year period under Section 433-A CrPC, the Court ordered his immediate release.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling reaffirms the principles of judicial fairness in military trials. It emphasizes that:

• Life imprisonment should be reconsidered in cases where the convict has served a significant portion of the sentence.
• Courts must consider the mental and emotional state of an accused in extreme situations like armed conflicts.
• Prisoners with good conduct records should be given an opportunity for reintegration into society.

By granting the appellant’s release, the Supreme Court balanced justice with humanity, acknowledging the unique pressures faced by military personnel in conflict zones.

Petitioner Name: Ex-Gunner Virender Prasad.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant.
Place Of Incident: Kashmir.
Judgment Date: 18-03-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ex-Gunner Virender P vs Union of India & Anr Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 18-03-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by S. A. Bobde
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category