Why fight during training cost this Indian Army recruit his entire military career

“Of course, when an accused pleads guilty and if the sentence is disproportionate, there can definitely be a judicial review of the same. But we have to bear in mind that we are concerned with the maintenance of military discipline. The considerations are different,” the court said on June 1.

Justices G R Swaminathan and R Poornima said that we did not find any sufficient ground to interfere in favour of the petitioner.

The order added that there might have been some provocation for the same, but that did not entitle the petitioner to inflict a grievous injury (fracture on RT mandible) on a fellow recruit.

‘He could have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment’

• After hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as the Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents, we are of the view that interference is not warranted.
• It is for more than one reason. The writ petitioner had not even been formally admitted to the armed forces.
• When charges were framed against the petitioner, the petitioner did not plead any mitigating circumstances.
• On the other hand, he pleaded guilty. Once the petitioner pleaded guilty, the authority was left with the discretion to award an appropriate sentence.
• The Deputy Solicitor General of India would contend that, considering the nature of the act committed by the petitioner, he could have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The authorities did not do so.
• They took a lenient view and chose to restrict the punishment of dismissing the petitioner from service.
• Of course, when an accused pleads guilty and if the sentence is disproportionate, there can definitely be a judicial review of the same.
• The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed, and the tribunal also did not deem it fit to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner.
• In the exercise of judicial review, we did not find any sufficient ground to interfere in favour of the petitioner.

Case of altercation during military training

The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on December 19, 2016, and was undergoing basic military training. On April 12, 2017, an altercation occurred between the petitioner and a fellow recruit. The victim sustained grievous injuries (Fracture RT mandible), and he complained to the superior authorities.

In this regard, a court of inquiry was held against the petitioner on May 5, 2017, and two charges were framed against the petitioner. First, that without sufficient cause, failing to appear at the place appointed for duty, and, second, that an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline.

When the petitioner was questioned, he pleaded guilty to both charges. He only sought pardon and undertook not to repeat such acts. However, the summary court martial was of the view that the petitioner’s conduct was not in consonance with military discipline and hence, awarded the sentence of dismissal from service of order dated January 10, 2018.

Following the dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal vide order dated August 5, 2019.

Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a plea before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Regional Bench, Chennai. In August 2023, the AFT dismissed the appeal. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed this petition before the high court.