Single person's statement alone cannot lead to conviction, rules Supreme Court

In a recent judgement B. S. HARI COMMANDANT Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. D.D. 13 April 2023, the Supreme Court has quashed and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to a retired Army personnel by the General Security Force Court (GSFC). The court has held that the statement of a single person alone, in this instance, ought not to have resulted in the conviction of the accused without other material(s) incriminating him or pointing to his guilt.

The case pertains to a retired Army personnel who was convicted by the GSFC for alleged financial irregularities. The appellant had challenged the conviction and sentence in the High Court, which was dismissed. The appellant then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which has now allowed the appeal.

The court observed that except for the statement of a co-accused, there was no material against the appellant, and the statement of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence to convict anyone other than the person who made the confession. It can only be relied upon if there is sufficient evidence on record to support the case of the prosecution.

The court also held that the High Court ought to have examined the matter threadbare, particularly since it did not involve navigating a factual minefield. The High Court, while declining to consider the plea raised on the insufficiency of evidence, had observed that the findings of a Security Force Court are beyond the purview of a writ Court, which the Supreme Court held to be incorrect.

The Supreme Court reiterated that High Courts, under Articles 226 and/or 227, are to exercise their discretion solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the judge. The court held that the case was a fit one for the High Court to have examined the matter threadbare.

The court also issued additional directions stating that as a matter of practice, all courts and tribunals should number paragraphs in all orders and judgments in seriatim, factoring in the judgments afore extracted, to enhance the structure, readability and accessibility of the judgments.

The appellant has been held entitled to full retiral benefits from the date of his superannuation till date, and all payments due to him are to be processed and made within twelve weeks from the date of the judgement, after adjusting any amount(s) already paid.

B. S. HARI COMMANDANT Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

• Lawyer E- News Android Mobile App
• Latest Legal News

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/13-Apr-2023-B.S.-HARI-COMMANDANT-Vs-UOI-Crim.pdf"]