Military Court Conviction Overturned: Supreme Court Ruling on Due Process

The case of Union of India & Ors. v. Ex. No. 3192684 W. Sep. Virendra Kumar pertains to the conviction of an army soldier for the murder of a fellow soldier during a firing practice. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether due process was followed during the court martial proceedings and whether the dismissal of the soldier was lawful.

Background of the Case

Virendra Kumar, enrolled as a soldier in the Jat Regimental Centre, Bareilly, was implicated in the killing of Havildar Harpal during a firing exercise on October 2, 2004. Following the incident, Kumar was charged under Section 302 IPC for murder and under Section 64(c) of the Army Act, 1950 for attempting to commit suicide. The General Court Martial convicted him, sentencing him to life imprisonment and dismissal from service.

Subsequently, the Armed Forces Tribunal set aside the conviction, citing procedural lapses under Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954. The Union of India challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Parties

• Petitioner (Union of India): The government argued that the Court of Inquiry was conducted to ascertain the facts and did not initially suspect Kumar’s involvement. They contended that even if Rule 180 was not strictly followed, Kumar was given multiple opportunities to cross-examine witnesses and defend himself during the trial.
• Respondent (Virendra Kumar): Kumar’s defense argued that the proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with Rule 180, which mandates that a person facing allegations must be present during witness depositions affecting his character or military reputation. They maintained that his absence at crucial stages denied him a fair trial.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the scope of Rule 180 and relevant precedents, concluding:

• Procedural Lapses: While there was a failure to comply with Rule 180, the accused did not object to this omission at earlier stages.
• Fair Trial Considerations: The court noted that the accused had declined opportunities to cross-examine witnesses during the summary of evidence and trial stages.
• Tribunal’s Overreach: The Armed Forces Tribunal lacked the authority to order a de novo trial based on procedural lapses under Rule 180, as per Section 16(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

The Court held:

“Though there is non-compliance of Rule 180, the respondent did not raise this ground either at the stage of framing of charge, recording summary of evidence, or during the Court Martial proceedings. After a final order was passed, it is not open to the respondent to raise the ground of non-compliance of Rule 180 during the Court of Inquiry proceedings.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court overturned the Tribunal’s decision and reinstated the court-martial conviction. However, considering that Kumar had already undergone over ten years of imprisonment, the Court ruled that no further sentence would be imposed.

Petitioner Name: Union of India & Ors..
Respondent Name: Ex. No. 3192684 W. Sep. Virendra Kumar.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Jat Regimental Centre, Bareilly.
Judgment Date: 07-01-2020.

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

Download Judgment: Union of India & Ors vs Ex. No. 3192684 W. S Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-01-2020.pdf