No impact of confession before incompetent authority if conviction based on evidence before court martial: HC

Recording of a pre‑trial confession by an incompetent authority will not impact the findings of a General court martial (GCM) if the conviction is based on evidence produced during the trial, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled.

The high court agreed with the judgement of the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) that had, in 2020, upheld the sentence of dismissal from service and life imprisonment awarded by a GCM to a soldier who had shot dead two colleagues in Doda with his service weapon way back in 2007.

A complaint over the incident had been lodged by the Army authorities with the local police at Bhaderwah, following which a case was registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Army Act, and the accused soldier was produced before a magistrate in Bhaderwah, who recorded a pre-trial confession under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Magistrate referred the matter to the Army authorities under Section 125 of the Army Act and he was charged under Sector 69 of the Army Act for committing a civil offence, read with Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code for murder.

The soldier had challenged his conviction on the grounds that a sub-divisional magistrate is not the competent authority to record a pre-trial confession under Section 164 and this confession was one of the reasons for the GCM convicting him.

“The recording of a confession by an incompetent authority will not make much difference to the ultimate findings recorded by the General Court Martial or the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, since conviction is based on the total evidence brought on record and not solely upon the confession of the petitioner,” a Division Bench comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal said in their order a few days ago.

During the court arguments, it was brought out that there were 21 witnesses whose statements were brought on record to prove the allegations alleged against the accused soldier.

“Once enough evidence has been brought on record to prove the allegation against the petitioner that he had murdered two colleagues — which fact has been taken into consideration by the General Court Martial while recording the finding of guilt — then the dispute about the confessional statement, even if it is not taken into consideration, there is enough evidence on record to prove the allegation of murder of his two colleagues alleged against the petitioner,” the Bench ruled.