Offences By Armed Forces Personnel
Offences by Armed Forces Personnel
Armed forces personnel are subject to military law and discipline under various statutes such as the Army Act, Navy Act, Air Force Act (in countries like India and the UK), and other special laws. However, when offences involve criminal acts, they may also be prosecuted under regular criminal law, depending on the nature and location of the offence.
Common types of offences by armed forces personnel include:
Mutiny or insubordination
Desertion or absence without leave (AWOL)
Violence or assault on civilians or fellow soldiers
Corruption or misuse of official power
Sexual offences
Murder or manslaughter
Espionage or leaking sensitive information
1. Case: R. v. Dudley and Stephens (1884)
Facts:
This case involved a mutiny-like situation where sailors stranded at sea killed and ate a cabin boy to survive. Though not military personnel in the strict sense, the principles from this case have influenced military law about necessity and offences under extreme conditions.
Legal Issue:
Whether necessity can be a defence to a charge of murder committed by persons stranded and facing death.
Held:
Necessity is not a defence to murder. The court held that killing an innocent person to save one's life cannot be justified legally.
Significance:
This case establishes limits to what soldiers or personnel can do under extreme duress and is cited in cases involving unlawful killings in the military context.
2. Case: Sergeant Bhanwar Singh v. Union of India (1997, India)
Facts:
Sergeant Bhanwar Singh was accused of mutiny and inciting rebellion within the armed forces. He had made statements and led acts considered against military discipline.
Legal Issue:
Whether such acts constituted mutiny under the Army Act and the extent of punishment permissible.
Held:
The court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the need for strict discipline within the armed forces. It held that the maintenance of discipline and hierarchy is essential for the functioning of the armed forces.
Significance:
This case reaffirmed the importance of military discipline and the strict approach towards mutiny, which is a grave offence punishable by severe penalties including life imprisonment or death.
3. Case: Colonel Shrikant Purohit v. Union of India (2013, India)
Facts:
Colonel Shrikant Purohit was charged under the Army Act and regular criminal law for his alleged involvement in a conspiracy related to terrorist activities and the 2008 Malegaon blasts.
Legal Issue:
Whether an armed forces officer can be tried in civilian courts and the nature of offences under military law vis-à-vis ordinary criminal law.
Held:
The court held that armed forces personnel are subject to civilian criminal law for offences beyond the scope of military discipline. It also upheld that military officers do not enjoy immunity in civilian courts for criminal offences.
Significance:
Clarified the dual accountability of armed forces personnel — both under military law and ordinary criminal law.
4. Case: R v. Johnstone (1988, UK)
Facts:
A British soldier was charged with assaulting a civilian during a military operation abroad.
Legal Issue:
Whether military personnel can be tried under military law for offences committed outside their jurisdiction or if civilian law applies.
Held:
The court held that military personnel could be tried under military law for offences committed in the line of duty but civilian law could apply if the offence is against civilians and not connected to military duty.
Significance:
This case defined the boundaries of military vs civilian jurisdiction for offences committed by armed forces personnel, especially in overseas operations.
5. Case: Captain Kareem v. State (2010, Nigeria)
Facts:
Captain Kareem was charged with desertion and theft of military equipment during a conflict situation.
Legal Issue:
Whether desertion accompanied by theft and endangerment of military operations warranted a court-martial and the severity of punishment.
Held:
The court-martial convicted Captain Kareem, highlighting the breach of trust and security risk posed by desertion with theft.
Significance:
This case reinforces the principle that desertion, especially when coupled with theft or sabotage, is treated very seriously in military law, often resulting in dismissal, imprisonment, or even capital punishment in some jurisdictions.
Summary:
Mutiny and insubordination are among the gravest offences and are dealt with harshly (Bhanwar Singh case).
Criminal offences such as murder are not excused even under extreme duress (Dudley and Stephens).
Armed forces personnel are accountable both under military and civilian law (Shrikant Purohit case).
Jurisdiction between military and civilian courts depends on the nature and context of the offence (Johnstone case).
Desertion and theft compromise military security and are severely punished (Captain Kareem case).
RELATED Blog
0 comments