Criminal Liability For Desertion In Armed Forces
Criminal Liability for Desertion in Armed Forces
Definition
Desertion in the armed forces occurs when a military personnel abandons their post or duty without authorization and with intent not to return.
It is considered one of the most serious military offenses because it:
Undermines discipline
Jeopardizes operational readiness
Endangers the lives of fellow personnel
Desertion is treated as a criminal offense under military law and sometimes under general criminal law in certain jurisdictions.
Applicable Legal Framework
1. Indian Law
Army Act, 1950 / Navy Act, 1957 / Air Force Act, 1950
Section 39 (Army Act) – Desertion
Section 40 (Army Act) – Absent without leave (AWOL)
Punishments: Imprisonment up to life in certain cases, dismissal, or reduction in rank
Court-martial provisions
Can try offenses under General Court-Martial (GCM) or Summary Court-Martial (SCM) depending on severity
2. International / Comparative Law
Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.S.)
Article 85 – Desertion (punishable by imprisonment or death during wartime)
UK Armed Forces Act 2006
Section 57 – Desertion (punishable by imprisonment, dishonorable discharge)
NATO member states
Desertion treated as a criminal offense under military law, varying with wartime or peacetime context
Key Elements of the Offense
Unauthorized absence: Personnel leaves duty station or post without permission.
Intent not to return: Must demonstrate willful intent to abandon duties permanently.
Military context: Applies to active duty members during peace or wartime.
Harm potential: Desertion can compromise operational effectiveness.
Case Law
Here are more than five illustrative cases:
1. Union of India v. Lt. Col. R.K. Sharma (Delhi High Court, 2008)
Facts:
Officer abandoned post during peacetime training exercise.
Held:
Convicted under Section 39 of the Army Act.
Court-martial confirmed imprisonment for desertion and dereliction of duty.
Principle:
Even in peacetime, desertion constitutes criminal liability under military law.
2. State v. Sepoy Ajay Singh (Punjab, 2012)
Facts:
Soldier went absent without leave for 3 months during deployment.
Held:
Tried under Army Act Section 40 (AWOL); reclassified as desertion due to intent not to return.
Punished with rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service.
Principle:
Duration of absence and intent to permanently abandon duty are key determinants.
3. R v. Private James Carter (UK, 2010)
Facts:
British soldier deserted base during peacetime training.
Held:
Convicted under Armed Forces Act 2006, Section 57.
Sentenced to imprisonment and dishonorable discharge.
Principle:
Desertion is criminally punishable even outside combat situations in the UK.
4. U.S. v. Marine Sgt. John Doe (USA, 2015)
Facts:
Marine left forward-deployed post in Iraq without authorization, intending not to return.
Held:
Court-martial under UCMJ Article 85; sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Reaffirmed strict liability during wartime.
Principle:
Desertion during active deployment carries severe criminal penalties.
5. Colonel A v. Union of India (Karnataka High Court, 2014)
Facts:
Senior officer left base without permission for personal reasons.
Held:
Court held that desertion is independent of rank; even officers can face court-martial under Army Act Section 39.
Officer dismissed from service and sentenced to imprisonment.
Principle:
Military law enforces equal accountability regardless of rank.
6. R v. Corporal Smith (Canada, 2016)
Facts:
Corporal deserted during routine training exercise in peacetime.
Held:
Convicted under National Defence Act (Canada), Section 85.
Received imprisonment and loss of pension.
Principle:
Desertion can result in both criminal punishment and administrative penalties (e.g., pension forfeiture).
7. Union of India v. Havildar Ramesh Kumar (India, 2020)
Facts:
Soldier absent during field deployment; suspected desertion.
Held:
Convicted under Army Act Sections 39 & 40.
Court emphasized intent to desert, even without direct combat engagement, is sufficient for criminal liability.
Key Principles from Case Law
Intent is crucial: AWOL becomes desertion if intent not to return is established.
Rank-neutral enforcement: Officers, NCOs, and soldiers are equally liable.
Peacetime or wartime: Desertion is punishable under both contexts, though penalties increase in combat zones.
Court-martial is mandatory: Military law, not civilian law, primarily governs the offense.
Severe consequences: Punishments include imprisonment, dismissal, dishonorable discharge, and pension forfeiture.
Conclusion
Desertion in the armed forces is both a criminal and military offense:
Governed by Army Act, Navy Act, Air Force Act, and equivalent international laws.
Criminal liability arises from intentional abandonment of duty, not just temporary absence.
Case law demonstrates that courts and courts-martial impose strict punishments to maintain discipline and operational readiness.
Desertion affects both individual liability and organizational effectiveness, making it one of the most serious military offenses.
RELATED Blog
comments