Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Pt. Madan Lal And Sons vs Union Of India And Others on 1 September, 2000

Rajinder Singh vs Armed Forces Tribunal on 11 April, 2013

A perusal of the above shows that a person subject to the Army Act who commits an offence of murder against a person not subject to military, naval or air force law, or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against such a person or of rape in relation to such a person, shall not be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall not be tried by a court martial, unless he commits any of the said offences while on active service, or at any place outside India, or at a frontier post specified by the Central Government by notification in this behalf. The said provision would, however, not apply in the present case as the lady had clearly stated the petitioner did not consummate the final act of penetration and that there was no penetration. Therefore, it was not a case of rape so as to be barred of its being tried by a Court Martial in terms of Section 70 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal versus Union of India, 2002 (10) SCC 185 considered the jurisdiction of a Court Martial to try an offence of attempt to rape in the context of Section 70 of the Army Act. It was held that the bar would not be applicable to an offence of attempting to commit rape. The learned counsel for the accused in the said case had inter alia contended that under the Code of Criminal Procedure the offence under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC-for short) could be tried by which the offence attempted is triable and the offence in question being under Section 376 IPC, the same could have been tried only by the Sessions Judge and not by the Court Martial. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the question whether the Court Martial has the jurisdiction to try a person who commits an offence has to be adjudged from the provisions of Army Act itself and not with reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held that a bare reading of Section 70 of the Army Act makes it crystal clear that a person who commits an offence of murder against a person not CWP No.4801 of 2013 -10- subject to military, naval or air force law, or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against such a person or of rape in relation to such a person, shall not be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and cannot be tried by a Court Martial. But reading the charge against the appellant in the said case it appeared that the charge was that he attempted to commit rape. It was held that the conclusion was irresistible that in respect of an offence of attempting to commit rape and the jurisdiction of the Court Martial cannot be said to be ousted by virtue of Section 70 of the Army Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S S Saron - Full Document
1