Vijay Mohan

Upholding the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by a general court martial (GCM) to a soldier accused of shooting dead a colleague, the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has held that lack of motive or inadequacy thereof cannot stand in the way of conviction where the direct evidence of eye-witnesses is available.

Referring to an earlier Supreme Court judgement on the subject, the Bench said that the motive may be considered as circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a strong one. “The motive loses all its importance in a case of direct evidence of eye-witnesses,” the Bench said.

The accused soldier was serving as a Lance Dafedar in an armoured unit and was part of a quick reaction team (QRT) detailed for unit security at the time of the incident in April 2015. He was tried by a GCM for committing a murder, which found him guilty in July 2016. He was reduced to the ranks, ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and dismissed from service. In 2017, he moved the AFT against his trial and conviction.

According to court records, another Lance Dafedar who was part of the same QRT, was murdered by use of a 5.56 mm rifle from which three rounds were fired, allegedly by the appellant. He was found holding the weapon from which the rounds had been fired. The weapon had been allotted to the deceased.

The appellant’s counsel submitted before the Tribunal that the GCM had failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its correct perspective. The evidence had been misread and misinterpreted and the same has resulted in gross injustice and hence the findings of the GCM were perverse and deserved to be set aside.

The Bench observed that several eye witnesses present at the site of the incident have proved the fact that the appellant shot the deceased with a rifle. When this evidence is co-related with the evidence of some other witnesses, it becomes very clear that the appellant’s actions were pre-meditated and that he was the perpetrator of the crime after he stole the weapon allotted to the deceased.

The Bench also observed that it is evident from the appellant’s own sworn statements that he has admitted that the death was caused by him, though he has claimed that it was an accident. The facts which he claimed led to the accident were not recorded in the Court of Inquiry and Summary of Evidence.

Pointing out that the only thing that remains to be established is the motive and the same has not come on record as none of the witnesses have stated that the accused and the deceased had bitter relations, the Bench ruled that the motive loses all its importance in a case of direct evidence of eye-witnesses