-HITLIST-Union of India v. Sunil Tiwari (SC) -RECORD-BS227146 -CITATION-2009(16) SCC 358 ( SEETING DONE BY RAJESH\HEADNOTE MADE BY HARMEET\HEDNOTE TYPE BY SAVITA\ PR DONE BY SANTSOH) zzzz6 -COURT-<ß>SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<þ> -JUDGE-Before:- Mr. G.B. Pattanaik, S.N. Phukan and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.<þ> -NO- Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2002, arising out of SLP (Cr).) No. 1677 of 2001. D/d. -DECISIONDATE-30.1.2002. <þ> -EXTRATEXT- -PETITIONER- Union of India - Appellant<þ> Versus<þ> -RESPONDENT- Sunil Tiwari - Respondent<þ> -HEADNOTE-<ß>Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section BTZKACA225ETZK307 - Constitution of India, 1950, Article BTZKACA401ETZK226 - Conviction of respondent under Section BTZKACA225ETZK307 of Indian Penal Code recorded by Court Martial - Writ petition against - Interference by High Court in Court Martial proceedings - Defence plea and contentions raised by accused not properly considered - Therefore, reappreciation of evidence on record and interference therein by High Court held justified.<þ> [Paras 4 to 6]<þ> -ORDER- JUDGMENT<þ> <ß>Mr. G.B. Pattanaik, J. - Leave granted.<þ> 2. This appeal is directed against a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan. The respondent, who was serving in Army, faced a court-martial proceeding and ultimately was convicted under Section BTZKACA225ETZK307 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years in the said court-martial proceeding. Against the said conviction recorded by the Court-Martial, the respondent approached the High Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article BTZKACA401ETZK226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court by the impugned order having set aside the order of punishment inflicted upon by the Court Martial, the Union of India is in appeal against the same.<þ> 3. Mr. Lalit, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that howsoever wide the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 may be, in exercising judicial review against an order of an inferior tribunal, the same jurisdiction would not extend to reappreciation of the evidence on record and interfere with a finding arrived at by the inferior tribunal. According to him, a perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the High Court has reappreciated the entire evidence and recorded a conclusion that the accused is not guilty of the charges levelled against him.<þ> 4. We have no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law. But having examined the impugned judgment of the High Court, we find that the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the conviction recorded by the Court Martial inasmuch as the order of the Court Martial unequivocally indicates that either the defence plea or even the contentions raised by the accused in the proceeding had not been taken into consideration and merely on the evidence of the injured who happened to be the sole witness of the entire incident, the conviction was recorded.<þ> 5. It is true that in a Court Martial, it would be possible for the appropriate authority to record a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the injured and if such a conclusion is arrived at then the High Court may not interfere with the same by reappreciating the evidence. But that does not confer the power on the Court Martial Authority not even to consider the defence plea and the contentions raised on behalf of the accused.<þ> 6. On examining the order of the Court Martial which has been annexed as Annexure P-2, we have no manner of doubt that the Court Martial Authority never examined the defence plea and the contentions raised on behalf of the accused and based its conclusion on the evidence of the injured, Subhash Kumar. That certainly vitiated the entire conviction and therefore, the High Court was justified in interfering with the conviction recorded.<þ> 7. We, therefore, do not find any merits in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.<þ> -RESULT- .<þ>

<þ>