Offences relating to the Armed forces under Indian Penal Code/ Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Introduction

• The Armed forces play a crucial role in safeguarding a nation’s sovereignty and security, operating as a disciplined and organized force to protect against external threats and maintain internal stability. Therefore it is necessary to underscore the offences against the army.
• Chapter VII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860/ Chapter VIII of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 addresses offences committed by civilians in relation to officers in the Army, Navy, and Air Force of the Government of India. The primary objective is to maintain discipline and order within the Armed Forces of the Union.
• While most countries have special laws governing their defence personnel, serious offences like murder committed by these personnel can be tried in civil or criminal courts.
• However, military courts do not have jurisdiction over offences committed by civilians. As stipulated by Section 139 of the IPC/ Section 165 of the BNS, individuals subject to court-martial are not dealt with under the code.
• Sections 131-140 of Chapter VII of IPC/ Section 157-166 of Chapter VIII of the BNS specifically focus on offences committed by civilians in relation to defence personnel, particularly those in which civilians abet offences committed by the Army, Navy, or Air Force.
• The Penal Code exempts individuals subject to the Army Act, 1950, the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934, and the Air Force Act, 1950, from liability under Section 139 of the IPC/ Section 165 of the BNS, indicating that defence personnel are governed by special laws rather than the Indian Penal Code.
• The fundamental purpose of this article is to maintain discipline within the Army, Navy, and Air Force, with a focus on the interactions between civilians and military personnel.

Abetment of Mutiny

Section 131 of IPC/ Section 157 of the BNS: Abetting Mutiny or Attempting to Seduce a Soldier, Sailor, or Airman from Duty:

• Definition: This section penalizes anyone who abets the committing of mutiny or attempts to seduce any officer, soldier, sailor, or airman from their allegiance or duty.
• Punishment: The offender can be punished with life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term up to ten years, and may also be liable to a fine.
• Case Example: In the case of Pindi Das, an article was published in a magazine that attempted to seduce Sikh soldiers of the Indian Army from their duty. The publisher and the printer were held liable under Section 131.
• Application: Section 131 of IPC/ Section 157 of the BNS applies where mutiny is not committed as a result of the abetment. The offence under Section 131 of IPC/ Section 157 of the BNS involves abetment not followed by actual mutiny, or where actual mutiny follows but is not caused by the abetment.

Section 132 of the IPC/ Section 158 of the BNS: Abetment of Mutiny if Mutiny is committed in Consequence Thereof

• Definition: This section deals with aggravated cases where mutiny is actually committed as a result of abetment or seduction.
• Punishment: The offender is subject to the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment up to ten years, and may also be liable to a fine.

Court Observation: The offence of mutiny consists of extreme insubordination, such as when a soldier resists by force or when soldiers rise against their military superiors due to grievances of a military nature. Acts of a riotous nature directed against the government or civil authorities also constitute mutiny.

In Pindi Das v. Emperor (1944)[1], the editor and publisher of a magazine published an article intended to incite Sikh soldiers of the Indian Army to abandon their allegiance and duty to the Government of India. The court held that this act constituted an offence under Section 131 of the Indian Penal Code, as it was designed to seduce soldiers from their duty. Pindi Das was found guilty and punished, underscoring the strict enforcement of laws against incitement to mutiny and the severe consequences for undermining military discipline and loyalty.

Legal Implications: This case demonstrates the seriousness with which the Indian legal system views offences related to the incitement of mutiny among military personnel. The judgment reinforces the principle that any act, including publications, that attempts to disrupt the loyalty and duty of military personnel will be met with severe legal consequences. This serves as a deterrent to others who might consider engaging in similar activities.

Abetment of Assault by an offender on a superior officer

• Section 133 of IPC/ Section 159 of the BNS  of the Indian Penal Code penalizes anyone who abets an assault by any defence personnel on a superior officer while the officer is executing his duties. This section stipulates that such an act is punishable with imprisonment for up to three years and may also include a fine. The term “assault” in this context refers to striking a superior officer or committing any act of violence against him while on duty.
• Section 134 of IPC/ Section 160 of the BNS addresses more serious instances of violence where the assault is actually committed as a result of abetment. The punishment under this section can extend to imprisonment for up to seven years, along with a fine. While Section 133 focuses on the abetment of an assault on a superior officer, punishable even if the assault is not carried out, Section 134 applies to situations where an assault is committed as a consequence of abetment, thereby warranting a more severe punishment.
• Both sections are applicable to officers, soldiers, sailors, or airmen in the Army, Navy, or Air Force of the Government of India.
• In essence, Section 133 of IPC/ Section 159 of the BNS   punishes the abetment of an assault on a superior officer with imprisonment up to three years and a fine, while Section 134 of IPC/ Section 160 of the BNS punishes the abetment of an assault, if the assault is committed as a result of such abetment, with imprisonment up to seven years and a fine.

Abetment of Desertion

• Section 135 of IPC/ Section 161 of the BNS of the Indian Penal Code deals with the punishment for anyone who knowingly aids a military person in deserting their duty. Desertion is defined as staying away from duty without any intention of returning. Under this section, mere abetment of desertion is punishable, whether or not the desertion actually occurs. The prescribed punishment is imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.
• Section 136 of IPC/ Section 162 of the BNS addresses the issue of civilians who shelter military deserters. It punishes anyone who harbours an officer, soldier, sailor, or airman who has deserted their duty. The penalty for this offence is imprisonment for up to two years, along with a fine. Harbouring a deserter is considered similar to being an accessory after the fact in other types of crimes.
• Section 137 of IPC/ Section 163 of the BNS holds the master of a commercial ship responsible if they negligently allow a deserter to be concealed on board. The master has a legal duty to thoroughly search the vessel before disembarkation to ensure no deserters are on board. Failure to perform this duty results in criminal liability. However, this section does not apply during times of war. The focus is on the negligence of the ship’s master in allowing a deserter on board, emphasizing the importance of their role in preventing such occurrences.

Abetment of an act of Insubordination

• Section 138 of IPC/ Section 164 of the BNS of the Indian Penal Code stipulates that anyone who abets an act of insubordination committed by a soldier, sailor, or airman will face punishment. The prescribed penalty for this offence is imprisonment for up to six months, a fine, or both.
• Section 140 of IPC/ Section 166 of the BNS addresses the unauthorized wearing of military uniforms. It punishes individuals who wear the uniform of a soldier, sailor, or airman with the intention of deceiving others into believing that they are members of the armed forces. The punishment for this offence can extend to six months of imprisonment, a fine, or both. Simply wearing a military uniform is not an offence; the intention to deceive is what makes it punishable. Therefore, actors wearing military uniforms in films or performances are not covered under this section, as there is no intention to deceive.

Conclusion

Army plays a crucial role in the country therefore it is necessary that these laws mentioned under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are adhered strictly to safeguard. Thus these laws are crucial for maintaining order and accountability among military personnel, ensuring that actions contrary to duty and service are appropriately addressed. They play a critical role in upholding the integrity and operational readiness of the armed forces, emphasizing the importance of adherence to military law and discipline in safeguarding national security interests.

[1]AIR 1944 Lah 392.