Soldier Missing for 7 Years To Be Presumed Dead, Not as ‘Deserter’, Under Indian Evidence Act: Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Must Read

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was...

Follow us

Excerpt:

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the status of a soldier, whose whereabouts are not known for seven years.

Brief Facts of the Case:

The Petitioner, Madhu Devi had filed this petition seeking a declaration that her husband Asha Ram, be declared dead in terms of Section 108 of the India Evidence Act. A writ of certiorari to quash the order of Respondents whereby the Asha Ram was declared as ‘deserter’ had also been sought.

The Petitioner’s husband was serving as Head Constable in 16 Battalion CRPF and was last posted at Civil Lines Mathua, Uttar Pradesh. The Group Centre of the Battalion is stated to be at Ban Talab, Jammu where the Petitioner’s husband was putting up in the residential quarter allotted to him. In June 2010, the Petitioner was informed that her husband went to purchase vegetables but did not return. 

The search for him was made by the Respondents but could not ascertain his whereabouts. However, the Respondents, instead of locating him levelled charges of desertion of the Unit against the husband of the Petitioner. 

In such circumstances, the Petitioner was left with no option, but to approach this Court by filing a petition, in which she sought a writ of Habeas Corpus directing Respondents as well as the state of Uttar Pradesh to produce her husband. 

Petitioner’s argument: 

It was contended that her husband had not been heard of by the family for the last more than seven years and even the Respondents were unable to trace him despite making all-out efforts including the issuance of notices in the Print and Electronic Media. 

On this ground, it is urged by the Petitioner that her husband be declared as dead and orders of the respondents whereby he had been declared as ‘deserter’ be quashed. 

Respondent’s argument: 

After the Petitioner’s husband did not return from the market, the search parties were sent out to trace him in the local area, Bus Stand, and Railway Station. FIR was lodged in this regard with Highway Police Station, Mathura, and a letter was also addressed to SP District Chamoli(Uttrakhand), but the Petitioner’s husband could not be traced. 

On 10.06.2010, a warrant of arrest was issued against the Petitioner’s husband following the procedure, but still, he could not be traced. A Court of Enquiry was also conducted, and the Petitioner’s husband was declared as a deserter from CRPF w.e.f  03.06.2010. 

A Departmental Enquiry was ordered against the Petitioner’s husband under Sec. 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1979 read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955, and based on departmental inquiry, charges were established against the Petitioner’s husband. In the order dated 31.03.2011, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the Petitioner’s husband. 

Observation by the Court: 

From the sequence of events, it was established that the Petitioner’s husband remained untraceable and his whereabouts are not known since 03.06.2010. 

Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act casts the burden of proving that a person is alive, who has not been heard of for seven years upon the person who affirms it. The Petitioner provides material on record that her husband could not be traced for more than seven years i.e., w.e.f 03.06.2010. The Respondents were also not in a position to state that the Petitioner’s husband is alive. The Respondent had also not disputed that the Petitioner’s husband remained untraceable. Thus, it is to be presumed that the husband is dead as per Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. 

The word ‘desert’ in the present case means illegally run away from the military service. A person whose whereabouts were unknown for the last more than 10 years, cannot be stated to have illegally run away.

In the instant case, the Petitioner’s husband was presumed to be dead as his whereabouts are known for the last seven years and cannot be held guilty of deserting the service of CRPF. The action of the Respondents in declaring the petitioner’s husband as ‘deserter’ and thereafter handing down the punishment of dismissal is unsustainable in law. This view was supported in the case of N. Pankajam vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006). 

The decision of the Court: 

The Writ petition was allowed and the Petitioner’s husband, namely Asha Ram was presumed to be dead. The order of the Respondents declaring the Petitioner’s husband ‘deserter’ and dismissing him from the service was quashed.  The Respondents were directed to release all the service/pensionary benefits of the Petitioner’s husband in favour of rightful claimants. The petition stood disposed of. 

Click here to view full judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -