Dalbir Singh v. Union of India
Background
The appellant, an Army soldier, was part of a cordon-and-search operation against militants in Jammu & Kashmir in 2006. During an exchange of fire in which a fellow soldier was killed and a machine gun was seized by militants, the appellant was charged with cowardice for allegedly abandoning his post and failing to use his weapons, despite himself sustaining a gunshot wound. A Summary General Court Martial convicted him, imposing six months' rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service, and the Armed Forces Tribunal upheld this on appeal. He challenged the Tribunal's order before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that its role in reviewing a statutory appeal from the Armed Forces Tribunal is limited to checking whether the findings were perverse, not to reappreciate evidence afresh, and found no such perversity here. It reasoned that the appellant's explanation, that he briefly lost consciousness after being shot, was undermined by his own detailed, lucid account of events he claimed to have been unconscious for, and that a soldier cannot rely on past good conduct to excuse failing to act when his comrade was under attack. The Court emphasized that a disciplined force like the Army warrants a stricter, less sympathetic standard of review than ordinary service matters. However, taking into account that the appellant had in fact been shot during the incident and that a long time had since elapsed, the Court upheld the dismissal from service but set aside the sentence of rigorous imprisonment, disposing of the appeal with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
Courts reviewing military disciplinary proceedings apply a narrow "perversity" standard rather than re-weighing evidence, and will hold soldiers to a demanding standard of conduct in combat, but can still calibrate the punishment itself (here, dropping the prison term while upholding dismissal) where mitigating facts and delay warrant it.