Vijay Mohan
Chandigarh, September 28
Upholding the sentence of two-year rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service awarded by a court martial to an Army man for taking a bribe for getting two persons recruited into the Army, the Armed Forces Tribunal has held that minor inconsistencies or discrepancies, which do not impact the substratum of the case, does not demolish the entire prosecution case.
Dismissing the petition of an Army jawan challenging his trial, the Tribunal, while referring to Judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts, said that evidence cannot be brushed aside or disbelieved over minor contradictions or variations appearing in the testimony of witnesses which have been duly explained.
A court martial had held a driver posted with a transport unit guilty of accepting a sum of Rs 3 lakh from a civilian for getting two persons enrolled into the Army while posing as a clerk with the recruiting office.
Following reports from the counter-intelligence unit of South-Western Command, a court of inquiry was ordered by Headquarters 61 Sub Area to investigate the matter, following which disciplinary action was ordered against him in 2019.
The jawan had averred certain infirmities regarding the date of the said offence and personal details mentioned in the chargesheet served to him and had also raised objections to the jurisdiction of the court as well as special findings recorded by the court during the trial.
In its order a few days ago, the tribunal’s bench comprising Justice Sunita Gupta and Lt Gen Bobby Cherian Mathews held that after concrete evidence was available during the course of the trial, the correct date was mentioned and hence no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner. Whether he was on leave or not during the said dates, the petitioner being in military service does not cease to be on military duty if he is on temporary leave.
The bench also observed that a special finding can be given by altering the charge in the records provided the accused is not prejudiced in his defence, which was not so in the instance case. The bench also said that other claims of being tortured, forced to sign papers and not knowing certain persons do not hold water.
