Preliminary Procedural Lapses in BSF Court Martial Don’t Vitiate Conviction if Full Trial is Fair: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction of BSF Hockey Coach for Sexual Assault on Minor

“When the trial has been conducted in accordance with law and opportunity of cross-examination is afforded, irregularities in preliminary proceedings cannot render the conviction void,” held the Delhi High Court on 17 September 2025, while dismissing the writ petition filed by Sarbraj Singh, a former BSF Inspector convicted of aggravated sexual assault on a 12-year-old girl under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Division Bench comprising Justice Om Prakash Shukla and Justice C. Hari Shankar declined to interfere with the findings of the General Security Force Court (GSFC), which had convicted and sentenced the petitioner to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service. The Court ruled that the allegations of procedural infirmity at the stage of Recording of Evidence (RoE) under Rule 45B of the BSF Rules, 1969, did not vitiate the trial, which was otherwise lawfully conducted.

“Victim’s Sole Testimony, If Credible, is Enough for Conviction under POCSO” – Court Relies on Presumption of Guilt Under Section 29

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the conviction could not be sustained in the absence of corroboration from independent witnesses, especially since the minor’s mother and her hostel roommate were not examined. The Court categorically held:

“In offences of sexual assault, the consistent position of law is that the testimony of the victim alone can suffice for conviction provided it gains the confidence of the Court and remains materially unshaken.”

Referring to State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ganesan v. State, the Court reiterated that minor inconsistencies or non-examination of additional witnesses do not undermine the reliability of a victim’s testimony, particularly when the victim is a minor.

The Court further held that once the foundational facts of the offence were established, the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act came into operation, and it was for the petitioner to rebut the same. The Court remarked:

“There is no dearth of doubt that the prosecution was successful in establishing the foundational facts of the case, whereas the petitioner neither produced any relevant witness nor anything was brought on record during the cross-examination, which could unsettle or create a dent to the foundation built by the prosecution.”

“BSF Coach’s Dismissal Alongside Imprisonment is Legally Sustainable; No Bar Under Section 50 of the BSF Act”

The petitioner had argued that his dismissal from service alongside imprisonment was barred under Section 50 of the BSF Act, 1968. The High Court rejected this argument by interpreting Sections 48, 50, and 51 of the Act harmoniously and held:

“Section 51 even assumes that a person can be sentenced to imprisonment combined with dismissal, which leaves no doubt that there is no such restriction on combining punishment of dismissal with certain other prescribed punishments under Section 48 of the Act.”

The Court found no illegality in the sentence awarded by the GSFC.

“Scope of Judicial Review in GSFC Trials is Extremely Limited and Does Not Include Re-Appreciation of Evidence”

The Delhi High Court restated the principle that Article 226 jurisdiction in cases of GSFC trials is confined to exceptional circumstances. Quoting its earlier rulings in Kiran Kumar v. Union of India and Prakash Chand Sharma v. Union of India, the Court clarified:

“This Court does not sit as an appellate authority over findings of the GSFC. The findings of facts arrived by the GSFC are final in nature... Judicial review is limited to finding whether the trial was conducted lawfully or if there was a violation of natural justice causing miscarriage of justice.”

Thus, the Court refused to re-evaluate the sufficiency or weight of the evidence, holding that there was no perversity in the findings of guilt or sentence.

“POSH Act Mechanism Not Mandatory Where Victim’s Guardians Choose GSFC Proceedings”

The petitioner had contended that since the alleged incident took place at his workplace, the matter should have been dealt with under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC).

The Court rejected this submission by noting that the victim’s guardians, who were themselves BSF personnel, had consciously chosen to approach the BSF authorities, who proceeded under the BSF Act. The Court observed:

“Even if the child victim falls within the definition of an ‘aggrieved woman’ under Section 2(a) of the POSH Act, the complaint mechanism under the Act is to be invoked by the choice of the aggrieved woman or her guardians.”

Accordingly, the BSF's decision to proceed through GSFC, rather than under the POSH Act, could not be faulted.

“Hearsay Allegations Unsustainable Where Victim’s Direct Testimony is Clear and Consistent”

The petitioner’s argument that the conviction was based on hearsay evidence — particularly the testimony of the father — was also rejected. The Court held that:

“The main prosecution witness here is the victim, whose testimony is direct and does not constitute hearsay evidence. Her version is consistent and was corroborated by her father and other BSF officials, and does not suffer from contradictions that go to the root of the prosecution case.”

The Court further observed that technical objections about minor procedural irregularities were insufficient to displace a conviction grounded in credible and consistent testimony of a child victim, especially in light of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which places the burden of rebuttal on the accused.

“Grave Misconduct by Coach in BSF Against Minor Child Warrants Stern Punishment” – High Court Declines Leniency

Refusing to show any leniency, the High Court remarked that:

“The heinous act of sexual harassment of a girl student (who is also a minor) by a sports teacher would figure quite high in the list of offences of grave nature since it has far-reaching consequences... and the said gravity stands multiplied in the case of a disciplined force like the BSF.”

The Court found that the punishment awarded by the GSFC was not disproportionate or illegal and thus required no interference.

The Delhi High Court concluded that no grounds under Article 226 were made out to interfere with the findings of guilt or sentence passed by the GSFC. The Court held that:

“The alleged lapses in the RoE under Rule 45B(1)(c) do not vitiate a subsequently lawful GSFC trial where an effective opportunity of cross-examination was afforded to the petitioner. Moreover, the evidence of direct testimony of the victim cannot be displaced by the non-examination of an additional witness or by immaterial discrepancies.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed in its entirety.

Date of Decision: 17 September 2025