Presumption of Innocence Prevails in Acquittal Appeals Unless Overwhelming Evidence Dictates Otherwise : Supreme Court Affirms Armed Forces Tribunal's Acquittal of Wing Commander

On November 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of India upheld the acquittal of Wing Commander M.S. Mander, dismissing the Union of India's appeal against the Armed Forces Tribunal’s (AFT) decision. The case involved allegations of wrongful confinement, assault, and unbecoming conduct against the respondent, an Air Force officer. The AFT had set aside the initial conviction by the General Court Martial (GCM), which had sentenced the respondent to imprisonment and cashiering. The Supreme Court's judgment emphasized the lack of direct evidence linking the respondent to the fatal injuries of a deceased signalman and reiterated the principle of judicial deference in acquittal cases.

Whether sufficient evidence existed to uphold the respondent’s conviction for criminal offenses including wrongful confinement, assault, and acts unbecoming of an officer, or if the Armed Forces Tribunal’s acquittal should be upheld.

The case originated from an incident on March 6, 1998, when Wing Commander M.S. Mander, along with four other Air Force officers, was involved in an incident leading to the death of Signalman UD Garje, a member of the Armed Forces. The deceased was reportedly summoned by the respondent following a complaint of misconduct made by another officer. According to the prosecution, the deceased attempted to escape from the custody of the officers, fell into a ditch, and sustained fatal injuries.

The General Court Martial (GCM) convicted the respondent under Section 304 Part II of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment, later reduced to two years by the Chief of Air Staff. However, the Armed Forces Tribunal subsequently acquitted the respondent, citing insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The Union of India appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

The prosecution alleged that Wing Commander M.S. Mander ordered the deceased to be confined to a guard room, and that this act constituted wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC. Additionally, the prosecution contended that the respondent was responsible for the deceased’s fatal injuries due to alleged assault and wrongful confinement. The Supreme Court, however, found no evidence linking the respondent directly to an assault on the deceased.

"There is no evidence to show that any act was done by the respondent with the intention of causing death or bodily injury to the deceased as is likely to cause death," the Court observed.

The Court examined whether the act of taking the deceased to the guard room constituted wrongful confinement. The evidence suggested that the respondent’s intention was limited to securing the deceased’s presence for identification purposes following a complaint of misconduct.

The Court held: "The act of taking the deceased to the guard room does not amount to wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC, as the intent was not indefinite confinement but rather securing the deceased for identification."

The Union of India relied on several witness testimonies to establish the respondent’s involvement in the alleged wrongful confinement and assault. However, key prosecution witnesses, including PW-8, who claimed to have seen the respondent with a stick, could not confirm any assault or act that would lead to the deceased’s death.

The medical evidence provided by Dr. Shiv Kochar (PW-33), who conducted the autopsy, stated that the deceased's injuries could have been caused by a fall on a hard surface, and there was no evidence of any injuries inflicted by a weapon.

"The injuries sustained by the deceased could not be attributed to the respondent, and the evidence shows the injuries were more consistent with an accidental fall," the Court noted.

The Supreme Court emphasized the high standard of proof required to overturn an acquittal. It reiterated that an acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence, and the burden on the appellant is higher in such cases.

"An order of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence, and another view on evidence is insufficient to overturn acquittal," the judgment stated.

Since the charges of wrongful confinement and culpable homicide under the IPC could not be established, the Court concluded that the related charges under the Air Force Act—Section 45 (unbecoming conduct), Section 65 (acts prejudicial to good order), and Section 71 (civil offenses)—also could not stand.

The Court held: "As the allegations of commission of offences under the IPC were not established, the respondent cannot be punished for the crimes under Sections 71, 45, and 65 of the Air Force Act."

The Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India’s appeal, affirming the Armed Forces Tribunal’s acquittal of Wing Commander M.S. Mander on all charges. Key points from the judgment include:

Lack of Evidence of Assault: The Court found no evidence of assault or wrongful intent on the part of the respondent. None of the prosecution witnesses confirmed any physical assault by the respondent on the deceased.

Medical Evidence Not Conclusive of Assault: The medical testimony suggested that the injuries could have been caused by a fall, consistent with the respondent’s version that the deceased jumped out of the vehicle and fell into a ditch.

Judicial Deference to Tribunal Findings: The Court emphasized the principle of judicial deference in acquittal appeals, stating that an acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence and should not be disturbed unless there are compelling grounds.

IPC Charges Not Established, AFA Charges Dismissed: Since the charges under the IPC were not proven, the Court concluded that related charges under the Air Force Act could not be sustained.

Held: "The Tribunal’s findings are plausible and based on a reasonable interpretation of evidence, precluding interference by this Court."

The Supreme Court's judgment affirmed the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision to acquit Wing Commander M.S. Mander of all charges, including wrongful confinement, assault, and conduct unbecoming of an officer. The Court held that there was no direct evidence linking the respondent to the deceased’s injuries and emphasized the enhanced presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals.

Appeal dismissed. Armed Forces Tribunal’s acquittal of Wing Commander M.S. Mander on all charges upheld.

Date of Decision: November 6, 2024