In a ruling that reinforces the judicial principle of presumption of innocence in acquittal cases, the Supreme Court has dismissed the Union of India’s appeal challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal’s acquittal of Wing Commander M.S. Mander. The case revolved around charges of wrongful confinement and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, stemming from the death of Signalman UD Garje in 1998.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, highlighted that the presumption of innocence, already strengthened by an acquittal, cannot be overturned merely because another interpretation of the evidence is possible. “An order of acquittal further enhances the presumption of innocence,” Justice Oka observed, emphasizing that only compelling evidence of error in the Tribunal’s decision would justify interference.
Case Background
The case’s origins date back to March 1998, when Signalman UD Garje was accused of misbehaving with the wife of Flight Lieutenant S. Verma. Upon receiving this report, Wing Commander Mander directed Garje to report to the squadron, but after Garje allegedly evaded this summons, he was transported to a Guard’s room for confinement under Mander’s instruction. During the transfer in a military vehicle, Garje attempted to escape by jumping out, ultimately suffering injuries after falling into a ditch. He died of his injuries a day later, on March 7, 1998.
A General Court Martial (GCM) subsequently charged Wing Commander Mander and other officers with multiple offenses, including those under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Air Force Act, 1950. Though the GCM initially found Mander guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (under Section 304 Part II of the IPC), wrongful confinement (Section 342 of IPC), and acts unbecoming of an officer (under Sections 45 and 65 of the Air Force Act), the Armed Forces Tribunal later overturned this conviction in 2010. The Union of India’s appeal against the acquittal eventually brought the case to the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Arguments
Senior counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal had disregarded the weight of prosecution evidence and medical reports linking Garje’s death to injuries sustained during the escape attempt. Relying on witness testimonies and medical expert Dr. Shiv Kochar (PW-33), they claimed that Garje’s skull injuries were substantial enough to cause death under normal circumstances, arguing that the accused’s actions led to these fatal injuries.
Counsel for the respondent, however, emphasized the absence of any allegations or evidence of physical assault or intent to harm Garje. They pointed out that the injuries could have been sustained through accidental means and that the Tribunal rightly noted no direct act by Mander that would connect him to Garje’s injuries.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
In its detailed analysis, the Supreme Court found the Tribunal’s decision plausible, deeming it a “threadbare consideration” of the evidence. Justice Oka noted that prosecution witnesses did not testify to any violent act committed by Mander or the co-accused that could have directly caused Garje’s injuries. Even medical testimony could not conclusively attribute the cause of Garje’s death to any deliberate act by the officers, with Dr. Kochar admitting that the injuries could have resulted from the fall itself rather than from any assault.
The Supreme Court highlighted the lack of evidence showing any “intention of causing death” or “bodily injury likely to cause death,” reinforcing that the acquittal was well-founded on a lack of direct causative action by Mander.
Referring to the established principle that acquittals cannot be overturned on the basis of alternative views, Justice Oka observed, “An order of acquittal further enhances the presumption of innocence… The order of acquittal cannot be interfered with only on the ground that another view can be taken based on the evidence on record.” The judgment reaffirmed that in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary, judicial restraint in overturning acquittals must be exercised.
